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,