[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

[Toby Bartels]

Axel Boldt wrote:

>I guess that's what it all comes down to. Here's how I would try to
>convince a non-technical judge of my interpretation: "Assuming Mr. Toby
>is correct, the New York Times could freely take one of Wikipedia's
>GFDL images taken by Mr. Mav and use it to illustrate a front page
>article of its web version, without any license problems or negative
>repercussions. But if they were to include the image into their paper
>version, they'd have to license the whole article (newspaper?) under
>GFDL. Your honor, isn't that obviously bollocks, isn't the distribution
>medium a mere technical detail, since anybody can simply print out the
>web version?"
>  -- "Yes of course, oh eloquent attorney."

This seems to me like a reasonable argument that the NYTimes could make
to allow themselves to use mav's photo on their front page.
They'd have to argue that the front page is a *compilation*.
And if they really did include with mav's photo
everything that they'd need for the GFDL to apply when it's alone
(text of the licence, link to a source that hasn't been smudged, etc),
then I'd be inclined to let them get away with it.


-- Toby