On 9/2/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/2/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Practical but not-in-the-spirit-of-it answer: Tell him not to license it as GFDL but to just say that Wikipedia can use it. Then we use it as fair use and claim to disregard the Wikipedia-only license, knowing full well that he won't actually sue us for infringement since he already said we can use it.
Then please stop saying that "wikipedia can use it" when you are only referring to the en.wp.
Oh, please, what other Wikipedias are others referring to in this thread? Let's not be pedantic for no reason; I think my meaning was clear.
If you want to make this picture free to use for wikipedia (regardless of the language), then the author has to put one file containing the image under a free license.
I don't think copyrights work on a "per file" basis — they work on a "per work" basis. To my understanding of it, you can't GFDL only a low-res version of something and not have it also covered by a high-res version. At least I'm pretty sure there's nothing in current caselaw which would imply that different resolutions of the same image have independent copyright status.
FF