[WikiEN-l] When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

[Alphax (Wikipedia email)]

guru brahma wrote:
> Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I
> think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see
> in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts
> which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be
> used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
> 

AFAICT (and IANAL), a GFDL image that was photoshopped would have to
include both a link back to the original image (so that you could see
what it was photoshopped *from*) and would also have to credit you as
the original author.

If we don't already (and I think we might have) we should have an image
protection policy; you can't upload an image over one which already
exists. IIRC this has been implemented already by making image
overwriting a "protected" action, but YMMV.

HTH,
-- 
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060314/861cce3e/attachment.pgp