On 9/2/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/2/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)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