[WikiEN-l] GFDL and images

[Ray Saintonge]

K P wrote:

>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?
>
"Strictly not legal" usually means that it's not allowed under the 
strictest interpretation of the law.  Anyone that sticks to that 
interpretation is in a constant state of paralysis.  Most of us take 
decisions in our daily lives that are "strictly not legal".  In places 
where jaywalking is illegal do people who want to visit their 
across-the-street neighbour in the mid dle of a block really go to the 
corner to cross the road?   If your local ordinances limit the amount of 
garbage that you can put out for weekly pickup to 10kg, are you going to 
carefully weigh that garbage to make sure you are not over the limit?.  
Suggesting that you could cut legal corners is not the same as telling 
you to do something illegal.  How we deal with the law is just another 
question of risk management.

>>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.
>
Putting something into a law is a joke if it can't be enforced.  If GFDL 
is the "law" governing a transaction who is going to go to the courts to 
say "My GFDL rights were violated."?  You may very well have personal 
moral and ethical standards about what it means to break the law, but if 
you fail to enforce a violation of your own rights you are condoning 
someone else's illegal act.  In theory, when you grant a GFDL it's for 
as long as your copyrights are valid.  If you live another 50 years from 
today that means in many places until the end of the year 2127.  What 
provisions can you make now for posthumous enforcement for that long?

I very much believe that copyright law as we now know it is doomed, if 
only because it was based on grossly obsolete technologies.

>  
>
>>>>>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.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>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.
>>    
>>
>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.
>
It would take a great stretch of imagination to believe that he is 
telling anyone to act illegally.  Anyone who draws that conclusion does 
so at his own risk.  If someone gives you gratuitous advice and it is 
wrong or results in your acting illegally you can't blame the advisor.  
The disclaimer acts as a caution.  Would you be better off if he 
suggested these same things without the disclaimer?

Ec