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

[Fastfission]

The definition of "derivative" in the license seems to refer to only
very "large" derivatives (i.e., translating it into another language)
rather than small modifications. But I agree that the notion of a
derivative work is vague enough to make me uncomfortable. For example,
syncing music to a moving image is explicitly a "derivative work" in
this instance, which seems to imply that you can't use a no-deriv work
as part of another work, which would seem to rule out the idea of
taking an image from Wikipedia and using it practically anywhere else.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode :

"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
purpose of this License.

FF

On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, 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?
>
> Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
> license...
>
> Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an
> image of you for
> things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
>
> Justinc
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>