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

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 9/19/06, dmehkeri at swi.com <dmehkeri at swi.com> wrote:
> > You didn't comment on my other examples. :)
>
> Same answer, no? Sorry, I'm still not seeing the "downstream" argument.

My other examples were about our use on english Wikipedia. I even
mentioned how often we crop images.

>The
> "cropping for fair use" is not needed because we wouldn't have to rely on fair use.

Cropping is not permitted by CC-By-ND.
A desire to avoid cropping is actually the #1 reason why people have
told me that they want their work -ND.

> > 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.

Hm. Did you actually read the preface or did you just skim the conditions?

If it's not clear to you why we would permit some images as fair use
but not allow -ND then it needs some further clarifying.

> > 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.

Of course it is not a legal issue. No image that we can legally put on
our website would be a 'legal issue'.

It's a two fold pratical matter:

1) Our day-to-day activity sometimes requires making derrived works.
2) -ND content is not Free Content, and building a Encyclopedia from
Free content is the fundimental goal of the project.

> > 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?

You are the first person to point out that it isn't obvious that we
don't accept ND.

There has, in the past, been a person or two who has asked for us to
allow ND content... Usually a photographer who considers his pride in
his baby and his distrust for the world over the goals of our
projects.  Such discussions have never lasted long.

The reason that non-commercial (and usually 'with permission') are
stated clearly is because we used to allow them, more because of a
failure to consider the results than any real consious decision.  ...
It later became clear to us that our tolerance of these compromised
grants was materially discouraging the introduction of free works so
there was a campaign to remove them.