Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antarctica Without Ice Sheet.png

long comment
← Older revision
Revision as of 23:43, 17 March 2013
Line 34:
Line 34:
 
*****I think that you are confusing linking to the image, and a collective work. And I must apologise, perhaps my example has actually made such an error more likely, it [the example] was a bad one. Personally, I believe that putting BSD or Art Libre image in a Wikipedia article is a form of a copyright violation, but MW lawyers think that it isn't, so it should be allowed. So one would need to make a collage using this file, and then extract it from there... It would appear GFDL after that. However, I think it's an overkill, because I doubt that anybody would seriously read this restriction in such a manner. [[User:Sinnamon|Sinnamon]] ([[User talk:Sinnamon|talk]]) 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 
*****I think that you are confusing linking to the image, and a collective work. And I must apologise, perhaps my example has actually made such an error more likely, it [the example] was a bad one. Personally, I believe that putting BSD or Art Libre image in a Wikipedia article is a form of a copyright violation, but MW lawyers think that it isn't, so it should be allowed. So one would need to make a collage using this file, and then extract it from there... It would appear GFDL after that. However, I think it's an overkill, because I doubt that anybody would seriously read this restriction in such a manner. [[User:Sinnamon|Sinnamon]] ([[User talk:Sinnamon|talk]]) 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 
******I didn't realize it, but the owner of this site and author of that image is [[:en:User:Dragons flight]]. (Not outing anyone - he self-identifies on his user page.) I am posting a message at his en talk page about this ... it could be settled very easily if he would be willing to simply affirm the GFDL license. --[[User:UserB|UserB]] ([[User talk:UserB|talk]]) 17:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 
******I didn't realize it, but the owner of this site and author of that image is [[:en:User:Dragons flight]]. (Not outing anyone - he self-identifies on his user page.) I am posting a message at his en talk page about this ... it could be settled very easily if he would be willing to simply affirm the GFDL license. --[[User:UserB|UserB]] ([[User talk:UserB|talk]]) 17:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+

 
+
*'''Long explanation'''. Both the GNU and Creative Commons have offered interpretations of how the "viral" provisions of their licenses function (GFDL and CC-BY-SA, in particular) that are actually stronger than most people realize. Each license has provisions for combining licensed works with other "separate and independent" documents in an "aggregation" (to use the GFDL language). If the materials are really "separate and independent", then it doesn't matter that some are GFDL, some are CC-BY, and some are copyright restricted. For example, independent articles in a scientific journal could easily be regarded as separate and independent works. Each article stands alone, and in general articles in the same issue do not reference or build off of each other. However, in the GNU view, using GFDL images to illustrate a related piece of text '''does not''' constitute an aggregation. Rather they consider such a use to be a derivative use and to trigger the copyleft clauses of the GFDL. To give an example of this logic, suppose I have an article discussing the beauty of [[w:Angkor Wat|Angkor Wat]] along with accompanying photographs. In that case the text aids in understanding the images and the images aid in understanding the text. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, and consequently those parts can not qualify as "separate and independent". In the GNU opinion, this implies that combined work is not an "aggregation" but rather a derivative, subject to copyleft provisions on the totality of the work. If you illustrate text with a GFDL image, then under the restrictive GNU interpretation you would be required to release the whole combined work (text + images) under the GFDL (or reach some other agreement with the copyright holders). In their reading, the same ought to apply if you take GFDL text and add other images, you then have an obligation to ensure the images can also be released under the GFDL. The language is different, but Creative Commons has made effectively similar statements about the viral properties of their Share-Alike license. In their view it is a "strong" copyleft that is intended to grab hold of the associated text if CC-BY-SA images are used to illustrate a document. (This is in contrast to a "weak" copyleft, where the copyleft provisions only apply to works that works that are immediately derivative and not to larger works that copyleft material might simply be used to illustrate or otherwise incorporated in. Incidentally, at several points in their history, Creative Commons has explicitly discussed releasing both "strong" and "weak" versions of CC-BY-SA, but ultimately the "strong" language is the only one they have published.)
 
+
*Now, a bit of context is needed. Both GNU and Creative Commons have considered their copyleft licenses to be aggressively viral; however, the Wikimedia Foundation has never acted on that interpretation. In general, the WMF has always taken the position that mixing text and images with different licenses is fine. Hence, the WMF implicitly regards the copyleft provisions as being of the "weak" variety. Personally, I tend to think that a plain reading of the text of the licenses favors the "strong" copyleft interpretation, but there is enough ambiguity in the wording and more than enough complexities to copyright law that it can be regarded as an unsettled issue. To the best of my knowledge, no court has ever had to address whether the copyleft provisions of these licenses are truly "weak" or "strong", and hence no one really knows whether it is okay to mix GFDL images with non-GFDL text and vice versa. That said, I do know of cases where publishers have used GFDL or CC-BY-SA images to illustrate their works, and later been sent demands that the entire work be released under the viral license. In at least some cases, the publishers have either capitulated to those licensing requests or paid off the copyright holders to settle.
 
+
*So, the bottom line is this. The copyleft license authors basically intended their licenses to be strongly viral. In particular, in their view, GFDL images are only licensed to appear in GFDL documents, etc. The WMF has willfully ignored that interpretation, preferring to believe that the "aggregation" provisions are strong enough to cover mixing and matching images with text, even though that's not what the license authors had in mind. Given that there is no current court guidance on this issue, I tend to personally advise people that GFDL images should only be used within GFDL works and CC-BY-SA images should only be used in CC-BY-SA works. That's the only way one can really be sure that people won't get in trouble with these mixing and matching issues in the future. Encouraging people to mix and match, as the WMF does, could actually get reusers into legal predicaments down the line.
 
+
*So, yes, I consider this image (and the various other images on my site) to be licensed under the GFDL and under CC-BY-SA (and also separately licensed for non-commercial use). However, when it comes to writing my own website, I am going to advise people that sticking GFDL and CC-BY-SA images in works is potentially a bad idea unless the entire work can be covered by these copyleft licenses. If one wants to be safe, CC-BY-SA images should only be used in CC-BY-SA works and similarly for GFDL images. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 23:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Antarctica_Without_Ice_Sheet.png&diff=92787413&oldid=92768090