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