Mailing List Archive

Re: Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice [ In reply to ]
Toby Bartels wrote:
> So am I agreeing with you? No! Because the Wikimedia server does *not*
> present to you a web page that combines text material with an image!

While Toby and I are agreeing, I don't even think this hypertechnical
(to a court) explanation of how images are separate is necessary. The
license clearly contemplates compilations of works which "are not
themselves derivative works of the Document".

The intepretation that says that just because two things appear on the
same page, they are therefore derivative works (of each other?)
strikes me as unfounded, but I am willing to look at case law, if any
exists.

> I think that you have a good point about the paper version.
> When a paper version is printed, we will have to take more care.
> Even so, we'll probably want to treat images as separate documents;
> but we'll need to take additional steps to make this clear to the reader.

I think that's totally correct.

> Offhand, I would suggest printing a notice of copyright information
> along the side of each image that appears in the paper version,
> similar to (but more detailed than) the photo credits in magazines.
> The FDL notice for the article would again have to specify text only.
> But we can (and should!) think about this matter more carefully
> when we start producing printed versions.

I also would support, as our image tagging gets more mature and
comprehensive, that we display this information on the web pages as
well.

--Jimbo
Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice [ In reply to ]
Well, I'm glad the copyright issues have been cleared up. Thank you everyone for your responses.
Is any work being done to allow the tagging of images as copyrighted or GFDL? I would like to see this happen before we have millions of copyrighted images on wikipedia. Otherwise, it could be a lot more work trying to find the copyrighted images to tag them. It concerns me that some of our free (as in freedom, not beer) content is dependent on non-free content. However, if we can draw a clear line between copyrighted and GFDL content on the database side of things, I think this will help keep the free and non-free content separate, allowing anyone to use our free content freely, without a risk of accidentally including non-free content.


On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:07:14 +0200, Yann Forget <yann@forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 08:49, Michael Snow a écrit :
>
> (...)
> > But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
> > who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
> > notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem is
> > print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
> > argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
> > separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
> > print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the images
> > are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier facing
> > pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book. But in
> > the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the same
> > page as the article, they look like part of one document and I don't see
> > how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a result, I think
> > the article as a whole, _including_ associated images, is the smallest
> > Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.
>
> I would agree with you on the interpretation of the GFDL, but I think that the
> online and paper projects have to be treated differently.
> Some people even say that the WMF should never publish a paper edition on its
> own, and they may have some good points, but IANAL.
>
> Anyway, I think it's the responsibility of the publisher of the paper edition
> to remove fair use images. So it is important that images are clearly tagged,
> so they can be easily removed with a simple SQL query.
>
> And I can imagine another scenario where an organisation could buy the rights
> of copyrighted images to include them in a paper edition. But I can't say if
> this would be valid under the GFDL.
>
> > --Michael Snow
>
> Yann
>
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
> http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Michael Becker
Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice [ In reply to ]
Ah, that is a great idea! I might try and push for something like that on the en version, if it isn't being done already. Unfortunately, I've been gone so long that I don't know how these {{}} tags actually work. Could someone point be to the appropriate article on en that explains them? Thanks!

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:23:11 +0200, Yann Forget <yann@forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 16:56, mbecker a écrit :
> > Well, I'm glad the copyright issues have been cleared up. Thank you
> > everyone for your responses. Is any work being done to allow the tagging of
> > images as copyrighted or GFDL? I would like to see this happen before we
> > have millions of copyrighted images on wikipedia. Otherwise, it could be a
> > lot more work trying to find the copyrighted images to tag them. It
> > concerns me that some of our free (as in freedom, not beer) content is
> > dependent on non-free content. However, if we can draw a clear line between
> > copyrighted and GFDL content on the database side of things, I think this
> > will help keep the free and non-free content separate, allowing anyone to
> > use our free content freely, without a risk of accidentally including
> > non-free content.
>
> On fr:, we are doing it now.
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images
> and the list is getting smaller every minute.
>
> We use the following tags whenever possible:
> {{GFDL}}
> {{DomainePublic}}
> {{FairUse}}
> {{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
>
> So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
>
>
>
> Yann
>
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
> http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
>


--
Michael Becker
Re: Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice [ In reply to ]
Hi,

Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 16:56, mbecker a écrit :
> Well, I'm glad the copyright issues have been cleared up. Thank you
> everyone for your responses. Is any work being done to allow the tagging of
> images as copyrighted or GFDL? I would like to see this happen before we
> have millions of copyrighted images on wikipedia. Otherwise, it could be a
> lot more work trying to find the copyrighted images to tag them. It
> concerns me that some of our free (as in freedom, not beer) content is
> dependent on non-free content. However, if we can draw a clear line between
> copyrighted and GFDL content on the database side of things, I think this
> will help keep the free and non-free content separate, allowing anyone to
> use our free content freely, without a risk of accidentally including
> non-free content.

On fr:, we are doing it now.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images
and the list is getting smaller every minute.

We use the following tags whenever possible:
{{GFDL}}
{{DomainePublic}}
{{FairUse}}
{{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)

So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.

Yann

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
Re: Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice [ In reply to ]
Hi,

>
>On fr:, we are doing it now.
>http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images
>and the list is getting smaller every minute.
>
>We use the following tags whenever possible:
>{{GFDL}}
>{{DomainePublic}}
>{{FairUse}}
>{{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
>
>So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
>
If find this a very good approach and advance.

However, I might suggest to additionally offer at least the Creative
Commons license types as further options / choices for a picture
publisher (for images only) in WP. Its as easy as with Gnu Fdl to link
the license info to the Creative Commons (CC) full text license text of
the CC-Website.

I suggest to consider it, because CC use is growing especially for media
types of content. And CC should therefore be not left out since more and
more picture databases grow under CC which can be used for WP too. And
they should not be put under "LicenseInconnue" (rest of the pack) only
because there is no other option for the CC licenses available.

Dietrich
Re: Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice [ In reply to ]
Hi,

Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 18:31, Dietrich von Hase a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> >On fr:, we are doing it now.
> >http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images
> >and the list is getting smaller every minute.
> >
> >We use the following tags whenever possible:
> >{{GFDL}}
> >{{DomainePublic}}
> >{{FairUse}}
> >{{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
> >
> >So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
>
> If find this a very good approach and advance.
>
> However, I might suggest to additionally offer at least the Creative
> Commons license types as further options / choices for a picture
> publisher (for images only) in WP. Its as easy as with Gnu Fdl to link
> the license info to the Creative Commons (CC) full text license text of
> the CC-Website.

We do whenever this license is used, but that's not very often.
I personally put my images under both licenses, GFDL and CC-BY-SA.
There are also a few other cases:
* http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Drapeau_quebec.png (authorized by the
government of Quebec under some restrictions);
* non commercial only.

> I suggest to consider it, because CC use is growing especially for media
> types of content. And CC should therefore be not left out since more and
> more picture databases grow under CC which can be used for WP too. And
> they should not be put under "LicenseInconnue" (rest of the pack) only
> because there is no other option for the CC licenses available.

"LicenceInconnue" means the license _is unknown_. Sorry if I was not clear.
Usually it means the source is unknown. If the author of a picture is known,
it's usually easy to find the license.

> Dietrich

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
Re: Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice [ In reply to ]
Michael Snow wrote:

> But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
> who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
> notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem
> is print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying
> any argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
> separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
> print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the
> images are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier
> facing pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book.
> But in the routine print version, where the image is printed out on
> the same page as the article, they look like part of one document and
> I don't see how you can make much of a case that they're not.

We have too little detail on the printing and publication plans for the
print edition. The danger with an edition that infringes copyright
revolves around injunctive measures that would prevent its
distribution. By limiting press runs to what can be distributed in one
month that would limit those damages. In going from version 1.0 to
version 1.1 it would be easier to adjust for any copyright complaint
that might have been received.

Ec
Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice [ In reply to ]
I tried to send this message yesterday, but later got a message back
that mail delivery failed, so I'm trying again.

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Michael Snow wrote:
>
>
>>Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
>>"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
>>separate and independent?
>>
>>
>Except in some hypothetical cases which are hard to even dream up, I
>would say yes, absolutely. The authorship of the image is different,
>
Yes, but so is the authorship of various portions of text in most
articles. The cumulative effect of different edits does not fragment an
article into tens or hundreds of separate and independent documents.

>the process by which the image is authored is completely different,
>
No argument here.

>it is stored in a separate file "in or on a volume of a storage or
>distribution medium",
>
Not when the distribution medium is print, at least not if it looks like
the standard layout used in most of our articles that have pictures.
Facing page illustrations might be different, but when the image and
text are on the same piece of paper, I'm pretty sure they're being
stored in the same place.

>It is hard to see how the image is somehow
>a "derivative work" of the article or vice-versa. They are simply a
>compilation.
>
My contention is not that the image is a derivative work of the article
text, or that the text is a derivative work of the image. You might say
that the end result is an article that is a derivative work of both the
text and the image (here I'm using "derivative work" in a general sense,
not trying to analyze whether that term applies as used in copyright
law). But the real question is whether Article Foo, illustrated by Image
Bar and Image Foobar, is one Document under the GFDL or three. I think
that's not clearly defined by the license itself, and when the meaning
of a term in a legal document is not clear from the document itself, the
law typically relies on ordinary meaning and usage. In ordinary usage, I
would say that Article Foo is one document, not three, especially given
how we currently use images.

Is there a way to keep Article Foo as three Documents under the GFDL?
Possibly, but I don't think our current practices do much to keep the
works separate and independent, as required for Clause 7. Putting
licensing information in captions would certainly help, since without
that there's usually no indication when looking at the article that the
image is not covered by the license as well (I'm quite aware that we
cleverly say "all text", but that's hardly enough to alert many readers).

>>And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
>>argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
>>separate and independent work from the article text.
>>
>>
>Can you point me to any case law on this point? Law review articles?
>
Not off the top of my head. Given that copyleft in general has not been
around long enough to generate that much legal scrutiny, I'm skeptical
of finding much on such a specific question. But if you would like me
to, I can try and research the issue further. It may be a little while
before I get a chance to visit the law library, though. Again, given the
fact that "separate" and "independent" are not defined specifically in
the GFDL, I'm simply reasoning based on the ordinary meanings of those
words.

>Consider the implications of your argument for traditional licensing
>of images for book publications.
>
>Imagine the following scenario. I write a book, under traditional
>copyright. For my book, I license some images from you, under a
>traditional licensing scheme for such, i.e. you tell me that I can use
>the images for my book, only for my book, and for no other purposes.
>
>After the book has been published, I decide that I want to license a
>portion of the text to a magazine. Can you then object, saying that
>the text is now a "derived work" of the photograph? That the two are
>no longer separate and independent?
>
I think the analogy to traditional licensing schemes misses the point.
You would have the copyright to your text in this situation, and can do
whatever you want with the text by itself, in the same way that anything
I write on Wikipedia, I have the right to publish elsewhere, under a
different system than the GFDL if I so desire. And the question of
whether images and text are "separate and independent" is significant
specifically because that's the language used by the GFDL. Unless the
traditional license says something along those lines, I don't think the
question is relevant to this hypothetical scenario.

--Michael Snow
Re: Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice [ In reply to ]
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> We have too little detail on the printing and publication plans for
> the print edition. The danger with an edition that infringes
> copyright revolves around injunctive measures that would prevent its
> distribution. By limiting press runs to what can be distributed in
> one month that would limit those damages. In going from version 1.0
> to version 1.1 it would be easier to adjust for any copyright
> complaint that might have been received.

That could be a problem, as frequent small print runs are much more
expensive than infrequent large print runs.

-Mark
Re: Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice [ In reply to ]
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>With images, the separate authorship and the independence of the work
>is transparently obvious. The text is not derived from the image, nor
>is the image derived from the text. No one modifies GNU FDL text and
>turns it into an image, or vice-versa. (Barring hypothetical edge
>cases that are beyond the scope of this discussion.)
>
>
I don't think the edge cases are that infrequent, but IANAL of course.
For example, if I were to have a collection of GFDL'd pictures of
flowers, and you took that collection of flowers and used them to
publish an illustrated book of flowers, I would consider your book,
including its textual content, a derived work of my collection of images.

-Mark
Re: Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice [ In reply to ]
Delirium wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> We have too little detail on the printing and publication plans for
>> the print edition. The danger with an edition that infringes
>> copyright revolves around injunctive measures that would prevent its
>> distribution. By limiting press runs to what can be distributed in
>> one month that would limit those damages. In going from version 1.0
>> to version 1.1 it would be easier to adjust for any copyright
>> complaint that might have been received.
>
> That could be a problem, as frequent small print runs are much more
> expensive than infrequent large print runs.

Agreed. But we would need more concrete figures about the price breaks
to permit an optimization of the situation.

Ec

1 2  View All