[Wikipedia-l] GNU FDL pictures?

[Brion VIBBER]

koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> If I upload a picture and do not specify that I'm releasing it into the public domain (and so release it implicitly under the GNU FDL instead), can that picture be used only in works that are also GNU FDL?  Or could it be reused in traditional, copyrighted works such as newspapers?
> 
> What does the GNU FDL say about this, if anything?  What constitutes the article?  The text?  The image?  The layout?  All of the above?  Some of the above?

This could theoretically fall under section 7:

(snippet from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and 
independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or 
distribution medium, does not as a whole count as a Modified Version of 
the Document, provided no compilation copyright is claimed for the 
compilation. Such a compilation is called an "aggregate", and this 
License does not apply to the other self-contained works thus compiled 
with the Document, on account of their being thus compiled, if they are 
not themselves derivative works of the Document.

If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these copies 
of the Document, then if the Document is less than one quarter of the 
entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on covers 
that surround only the Document within the aggregate. Otherwise they 
must appear on covers around the whole aggregate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, IANAIPL. Note that if they use it, they will have to include a GFDL 
license notice and URL to a machine-readable version (see section 4).

 > Is there any way to release pictures for reuse only in GNU FDL or GPL
 > works (and not in copyrighted works such as e.g. <i>The New York
 > Times</i>)?  Yes, I'm serious about that.

Depends on how well the NYT can get away with claiming that your picture 
or article is just one of many things in their collection of documents, 
the rest of which happen to be under their copyright...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)