[Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

[Anthony DiPierro]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>This is not really an accurate representation of my position,
>actually.  Anthony is onto something, but my position is more complex
>that his simple statement would make it out to be.
>  
>

>Here's a handy table:
>
>our GFDL text + nonfree photo = not a license violation, but not
>appropriate for Wikipedia
>
>our GFDL text + free photo = not a license violation, VERY appropriate for
>wikipedia
>
>our GFDL text + fair use photo = not a license violation, should be used
>sparingly for Wikipedia (more sparingly than what we've done to date,
>in my opinion, but first we're working to catalog everything so we can
>do some appropriate analysis)
>
>-------
>
>As to why CC-ND (=No derivs) is bad, well, it's not GNU free.  The
>right to make derivative works is an important right.  It might be
>viewed by some as less important in the context of a photo or text, as
>opposed to software code, but I personally don't think so.  I think
>it's very important in our medium.
>
>Would I prefer to have a CC-ND photo to one which is licensed to
>Wikipedia for our use only?  Not really.  Both are unacceptable.
>
>--Jimbo
>  
>
But fair use photos are also not GNU free.  And what about photos which 
are fair use *and* CC-ND?  Isn't this better than photos which are fair 
use with no license?  I should note that CC-ND explicitly places 
encyclopedias under the category of a collective work.  As long as you 
don't modify the image itself (beyond that allowed by fair use), you're 
fine.

It seems to me that CC-ND is better than fair use.  It's global, rather 
than US specific.  It's applicable to all reusers, instead of being 
potentially unusable for commercial reuse.  And perhaps best of all, 
there's no arguing over whether the image is fair use.  While it clearly 
should be deprecated in favor of free licenses such as CC-SA or CC-BY, I 
think it's much better than many of the "fair use" photos we currently have.

But maybe that's where I'm misunderstanding you, because maybe you only 
want to use "fair use" in the clear-cut areas, such as logos.  But when 
it comes to an image of Dolly the Sheep, CC-ND is much more useful than 
fair use for the vast majority of reusers.  Cropping is about the only 
useful modification I could see a reuser needing to make, and that's 
probably going to fall under fair use anyway.

Anthony