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

[Ryan Delaney]

On 3/14/06, guru brahma <wikibra at yahoo.co.in> 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?
>

I don't see any need for this. If you take a picture of Eddie Van Halen, and
someone photoshops a beard and a corncob pipe onto it, you can be for damn
sure that this image won't be apperaing on Wikipedia. And since people do
this stuff all the time anyway without any kind of legal permission, you
won't be any worse off by indirectly permitting it anyway. No one is going
to see the image except a few of the joker's friends.

The only place where this is really different is when we are trying to
rework an image for legitimate purposes, and this license only introduces
barriers to that. There is no benefit to the project really.

The bottom line is that who are highly protective of their intellectual
property probably should not be contributing it to Wikipedia.

Ryan