[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[geni]

2009/2/1 Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net>:
> By way of example, I am currently working on a short (8 slide), clean
> presentation, to be licensed under a free license. It contains a slide
> with 8 thumbnail photos of generic pictures (a house, a building, a
> government chamber, a few racks in a datacenter, etc.) and a few
> samples of text. It also contains a picture of one of the original
> google racks which would be less easy to replace. Some of the photos
> have been transformed by others so there are multiple authors.

I doubt there are that many authors and crediting photo authors is not
a major challenge. Indeed in many cases wikipedia would be the long
option ("geni" is shorter than "wikipedia").


> By imposing the attribution requirements (indeed even linking to
> individual articles rather than Wikipedia itself) you are making it
> significantly more difficult for me to make use of the work and more
> likely that I will 'take my business elsewhere'.

Feel free to do so. Getty and Corbis will cost you say $100.

>That damages the
> community and thus the (apparently egotistical) needs of the few
> threaten to impose on the needs of many (both within our community and
> the general public as a whole).

Evidences?

> This type of piecemeal reuse/'remixing' is typical to that of an
> encyclopedia - for example in your average school project.

Your average school project is then a copyvio.

> The authors
> each contributed a small part to individual works which eventually
> became even smaller parts of a larger work. Their contribution at the
> end of the day is negligible and if they feel the need to have school
> kids quoting their name to teachers and the like then I suggest they
> would be better served by the various communities that cater for this
> 'need'.

This is what fair use and fair dealing is for. South Korea also has exceptions.

-- 
geni