[WikiEN-l] GFDL and images

[K P]

On 6/12/07, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/11/07, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/11/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > So, I should print it out, frame it nicely, then glue the GFDL to the
> > > > bottom of the frame before hanging it on my wall?  Imagine there's a
> > > > world outside of cyberspace....
> > >
> > > If you hang it on your wall at home, you don't have to add anything to
> > > it. If you /redistribute/ it, then you have to give the license.
> > >
> > >

" Though strictly not legal, I doubt anyone will come after you if you
> > > settle for license name and link in the image credits."

My bad, you were telling me to violate some other law than artistic
copyright when we're discussing artistic copyright?  What exactly is
it that is "strictly not legal" that you're suggesting I do in this
discussion of artisitic copyright, so I "don't put words in your
mouth" like think you're suggesting I do something illegal when you
lead the suggestion with the disclaimer that what you're suggesting
isn't legal?

> > So, in other words, I have to break the law.
>
> That is not what I said. Please read carefully what others write
> before putting words in their mouth.
>
> In case you need a summary:
> * Legally, you have to give the license
> * Practically, many authors wouldn't mind you using their GFDL images
> with an "abbreviated" license. If your income really depends on using
> GFDLd images, have you considered asking the author to release the
> image under CC as well?

Again, legally what I have to do conflicts with what you suggest I do,
and you're the one who says is, or someone else in this thread does,
and it isn't putting words in anyone's mouth--this is what is said,
"Legally, you 'have to' give the license." but "Practically, ...."

These are all suggestions accompanying statements that what is being
suggested isn't legal--that's not putting words in your mouth, it's
going by what you've said.

>
> > > > What I really do is just what everyone else does, ignore all the
> > > > images with GFDL and search for ones with Public Domain releases.
> > >
> > > So you personally know "everyone else"? Or do you have any usage statistics?
> > I personally know people I work with who deal with the issue of using
> > images, and other editors on Wikipedia whom I've asked about this.
> > All have offered the same solution: search for Public Domain images.
> >
> > As to statistics once you've asked for the 6+billion, sampling the
> > population just won't do.
>
> So noone if using GFDL images at all? Hard to believe, somehow.

That's not hard for me to believe that people who license their
artwork and want others to respect their licenses respect the
copyrights of other creative people.
>
> > > > I'm an artist, so don't try telling me I can just download someon
> > > > else's image and not comply with the licensing agreement, but it's
> > > > absurd to allow one to be used that simply can't be used--and, again,
> > > > imagine a world where images are used for things other than cyberspace
> > > > communities.
> > >
> > > Do you have a real-life example where it is impossible for you to
> > > comply with the license?
> >
> > Impossible?  The same example I gave, a 4" square image accompanied by
> > a couple of pages of text.  Impossible?  I'm a starving artist, I can
> > afford to frame a 4" square image, but can't afford the 24" by 24"
> > frame, paper and matboard for the accompanying text.
>
> Who said the license had to be on the picture? I appreciate the
> ridiculous idea, but it isn't very helpful in a discussion.

Don't put words into my mouth, it isn't helpful in a discussion, I
didn't say it had to be "on" the picture.  I said it has to accompany
the picture, which is what the license says.

>
> > > > The whole image world on Wikipedia and escpecially Wikimedia Commons
> > > > is so difficult and poorly thought out in so many ways that I seldom
> > > > bother uploading images.  Things like this, the common usage of a
> > > > license which, if anyone ever read it, simply could not be understood
> > > > to apply to images, is just one of many frustrating issues.
> > >
> > > Licensing images under GFDL was a neccessity in the beginning, as it
> > > was the only copyleft license for non-software documents available at
> > > the time. I think its use as the only image license will decline.
> > > Personally, I dual-license all my files on commons GFDL and
> > > CC-BY-SA-2.5, to give the user the maximum of choices.
> > >
> > > Magnus
> > >
> >
> > Please don't tell people to simply violate artistic copyright.
>
> Again, please don't put words into other people's mouth. It is neither
> nice nor helpful.
>
> Magnus
>

My bad, please don't offer people suggestions you think or suggest are
not legal ("Though strictly not legal," "legally" versus
"practically") prefacing them with disclaimers about their legality,
because people might thing you are giving them advice about doing
something illegal like suggestions about how to violate artistic
copyright.  It's neither helpful nor nice.

KP