[WikiEN-l] No derivatives (was: Would you like one of your videos posted on Wikipedia?)

[dmehkeri at swi.com]

> > > Consider what happens if we make a print version of Wikipedia with
> > > color images in black and white? Is that a derived work?
> >
> > Meh. Possibly a derivative work under some laws, I don't know.
> >
> > Though CC-BY-ND, for instance, explicitly allows transfer to different
> media,
> > and modifications necessary for such.
> 
> CC-By-ND leaves a lot of things unanswered.. not as vague as NC, but
> it's still ugly.
> 
> You didn't comment on my other examples. :)

Same answer, no? Sorry, I'm still not seeing the "downstream" argument. CC
licenses are meant to be valid for absolutely all media formats, including those
not yet conceived of, and even ND licenses make allowances for this. If a
downstream user really did have to make a modification to make it available in
some media format, then it would be explicitly allowed by CC-(*)-ND. The
"cropping for fair use" is not needed because we wouldn't have to rely on fair use.

> I think you misunderstand how fair use is supposed to be used on
> enwiki because it is so widely misused.

Quite possibly!

> See [[WP:FUC]].

I had seen FUC, and that was why I brought up fair use. I figured, if we allow
that stuff under these conditions, then surely a free license like CC-BY-ND
wouldn't be horrible, even if it is more restrictive than CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-NC-SA
is out, but I figured that was for downstream reasons.

> we do not want to make the impression that we are
> using the work under CC-BY-ND, that we approve of the license, or that
> we would encourage anyone to release content under it.

Well, this is a bit of a surprise. So, it's not just a legal issue for us and
our downstream users.

> 
> > You then go down just a bit further to find what "free license" is
> acceptable.
> > Again, it explicitly forbids non-commercial use licenses, but is silent on
> > non-derivative licenses. You then go to another page for "acceptable image
> tags"
> > (WP:TAG).
> 
> I'll fix that so it doesn't create any impression of being a complete list.
> 

Well, if it is a fairly common case, then maybe it actually needs explaning and
justifying, like for NC. I'd like to say it's not an obvious point at all, but
maybe this is only because I like to think of myself as not being dense.

Seriously, am I the first one to bring ND up? If so, there's probably no point
adding rules for a rare or even hypothetical case. If not, is there a pointer to
discussion somewhere?

Cheers,
Daniel