[Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

[Anthere]

Yann Forget a écrit:
> Hi Anthere and all,
> 
> 
>>Brion Vibber a écrit:
>>
>>>On Feb 15, 2004, at 19:44, Anthere wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>By the way, is it okay that I relicense all the images I offered
>>>>wikipedia as copyright by Anthere with permission, with a link to my
>>>>user page, instead of under gfdl ?
>>>
> 
> No, that's not OK. Permission from the author means permission to put the
> image under GFDL. And as said Brion, that's may not even but legal for
> images already on Wikipedia.

Okay. So another option I see to ensure the gfdl is respected is to 
embbed gfdl copyright and author name in any picture uploaded.
That was what Aoineko was initially doing, and I thought it a strange 
idea, but it may not be so strange after all.


Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyrights we write


That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and 
redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to 
others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a 
direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement).

We mislead people in thinking that this is true, when clearly this is not.

And actually, when an author credit is *not* satisfied, we just say 
"well, your problem, you were nice to contribute. No, Wikipedia will not 
respect its engagement, you have to fight for your rights alone"

Look, I spend hours in november and december writing the ecology article

Look at the credit given to the five main authors

http://www.slashdotsucks.com:8080/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Ecology&action=history

That is interesting no ?

Or why is the article on wheat entirely writen by one person ?
http://www.slashdotsucks.com:8080/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Wheat&action=history

Finally, there no references to authors, no reference to wikipedia, and 
no clear reference to gfdl, and that is ok ? And we should individually 
defend our rights, and the project, with no collective help whatsoever ?

Sorry, but if we work together on a project, we somehow share both the 
benefits and the troubles together. We are stronger to defend ourselves 
together as well.
Answering to people who stupidely read a sort of "charter" that well, 
yes, this is your problem right, won't make it.

We know gfdl is broken, but when someone suggest to change it, people 
say, "oh but we can't do that to old contributors". True; So, to 
preverse a couple of old contributors, we just let the project be 
stripped. Right now, we need people to know us more, we need more 
contributors, we need to be trusted. Is telling contributors to take 
care of the infrigments all by themselves a good way to show that we 
care about them ? I do not think so.

Is listing as the 5 (well 6) main contributors of the Antony project are

by Daniel Mayer, Andre Engels, Bryan Derksen, Brion Vibber,
Michael Hardy, Anthony DiPierro

a good way to show people that we care about them, that we value their 
contributions ?

I do not think so.

But I am glad to discover that I am totally minor contributor compared 
to Anthony DiPierro. May I also attack him for violation of the gfdl as 
he is probably a lesser contributor than I ? Is it not a violation to 
just cite 6 people among thousands ? How did he judged these 6 people 
are the main authors of the encyclopedia ?

I hope the 5 listed people feel confortable and happy at least.



>>>Keep in mind that if you were to withdraw the GFDL license, the images
>>> would be removed from Wikipedia.
>>
>>I have doubts. Many images are indicated copyrighted, but that the
>>author gave permission for use. And they are in Wikipedia.
>>When we wrote the images copyright pages with Alex, this case was
>>mentionned, and we have some images under that copyright. Again, we
>>think that it is better than no image at all, and better than image
>>under fair use.
> 
> 
> And no, it is not better than fair use, it is worse.
> I would tolerate fair use, because the law gives us the right to use the
> image *without* consent from the author. I won't tolerate a status where
> the author can change his/her mind at will. That's not acceptable for
> Wikipedia.
> And I would delete images under this kind of status.

I disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyrights if you 
read it, allows that type of mention.
You also know that fair use does not exist in France for example. Now, 
if National Geographic allow us to use 500 absolutely great pictures we 
can't find anywhere else, I would support this use. When someone offers 
you something, you do not frown the nose.
I think it is more reasonable to use a copyrighted images offered by its 
  original author, that to just ask nothing, use it and hope that no one 
will ever discover the use in question.

Changing minds is another issue.

>>So, where would be the difference ?
>>
>>There is perhaps another possibility as well. That the description page
>>of the image contains automatically the name of who uploaded it. At
>>least, it would require that Anthony remove manually this information
>>from all description pages before being able to claim copyright on them.
> 
> 
> That would help sort out the images as I am trying to do on fr:
> And I feature to list one's own images would be most helpful.
> Or even to list all images from any author.

That would indeed be a great feature :-)
I support this.


> 
>>>>Because, if I am glad to offer my images under gfdl as a recognised
>>>>author, I do not agree that my images are now registered as under
>>>>copyright by Anthony DiPierro, with my name gone, perhaps for him to
>>>>make money over my work.
>>>
> 
> Now that's very bad. we should take this case (and others of the same
> kind) seriously.

Taking it seriously should mean taking position all together as a group. 
Not just answering people it is their problem.

>>>>I will now put all my images under copyright with permission for
>>>>Wikipedia only. But can I do it with the old images as well ?
>>>
>>>Giving permission to Wikipedia only won't satisfy Wikipedia's GFDL
>>>requirements for 3rd-party redistribution, so we'll have to remove any
>>> such images.
>>>
>>>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>>
>>We have thousand of images to remove then. Let's start now.
> 
> 
> We should at least give a proper status for all images because a lot of
> them may be used legally but we can't tell because there is no mention of
> the source nor the status.
> 
> Any way, I hope you had nice holidays Anthere. ;o)
> 
> Yann

Yes, but the pictures will be less nice with a huge gfdl embedded 
mention in the middle of them :-)