555:
need a license that clearly has a "strong copyleft" effect on photographs and similar media, so that when they are used e.g. in newspaper articles, the surrounding articles would need to be copylefted, too. That is consistent with our licensing policy, but neither the GFDL nor CC-BY-SA have really developed clear and unambiguous language to this effect. Creative
Commons is open to modifying CC-BY-SA to clarify that copyleft applies on images used in the context of other works (as opposed to only applying to modifications to the image itself). While not helping you with all use cases you're concerned about (it would still allow commercial use in ads, provided the ads are freely licensed), it should certainly limit use in ways which are consistent with our values. This is something we can continue to work on together. Beyond that, I'd encourage the people concerned about commercial use to think about Knowledge (XXG) not as their primary publishing platform, but as a way to highlight and promote some of their work, while generating revenue elsewhere.--
571:... issue is a frequent proposal (especially on Commons and the listservs) and both the community and the WMF have been consistently opposed to the idea from the beginning. Yet it keeps getting proposed every few months and we have to go through the same arguments over and over again. The issue of non-commercial licenses is not simply "a matter of degree", it would represent a fundamental change in the philosophy and values of both Knowledge (XXG) and the free culture movement (which Knowledge (XXG) has an integral relationship with). If you intend to continue this proposal, please familiarize yourself with the history of the issue:
534:...Many months ago I approached the Foundation about allowing NC images in place of fair use images for subjects where no truly free image exists. That is to say that NC might be allowed, but only when there was no more free alternative was available to show the same subject. Personally, I consider NC to be much clearer for reusers than fair use, since in both cases a commercial reuser may need to remove images, but NC provides a
497:
they would go find a different pic or just not use it at all. Large corporations you'd expect to respect copyright and would pay you in exchange for a less restrictive license. I would much rather have some level of protection and be ripped off by small-timers than none at all and ripped off by everyone. I would at least like to have the
68:. This will not violate wikis principles of free knowledge and will convince photographers to release higher resolution pictures as well. It might also convince professional photographers to release their work knowing that their work will not be used for commercial means and that they will still be able to make a living.
554:
It's been
Wikimedia's long-standing position that allowing commercial re-use contributes to its educational mission (the negative impact of stupid commercial uses is outweighed by the positive impact of educational, commercial uses), and that position is unlikely to change. That said, I do believe we
540:
while fair use is fuzzy and ought to be looked at on a case by case basis. The
Foundation was open to the idea of using limited NC images at the time, provided that the community backed it. Though there would still be a tension between the desire to encourage people to create truly free content and
496:
Essentially what he's arguing is that you may as well upload with a liberal license because you're gonna be ripped off anyway. But the people who are going to rip you off are not really in "the market" - in other words even if they cared about obeying copyright they wouldn't pay for an image; instead
504:
A big problem with liberal licenses is that people rarely go beyond "you are free to use this commercially" and read SA terms - much less actually comply with these conditions. The "SA license will create useful derivatives under free licenses" is largely, IMO, a myth. People treat these licenses as
298:
if Getty or
Reuters suddenly approached WMF and said to Knowledge (XXG) that we want to donate all of our images under an NC license to support the creation of a 💕, wouldn't you want the WMF to accept that offer? Again ultimately I think that question hinges on what Knowledge (XXG)'s priorities are
196:
If a GFDL article can host a Fair Use image then a GFDL article can host NC images. If a GFDL article can host CC-by-SA content (which is not GFDL) then it can host NC images. If a GFDL article can host PD content (again not GFDL) then it can host NC images. Knowledge (XXG) already incorporates many
177:
You can only create that combined work if the licenses and associated rights on all the pieces allow you to do so. The FSF position, and I would argue the natural reading of the license, is that creating that new article version is only allowed if all the pre-existing pieces are licensed under the
63:
Having recently invested quite a lot in photographic gear, I am reluctant to give away my images for free. I have no problem with wikipedia or any other non-commercial organization using them, however I would not like commercial institutions to benefit at my expense. I therefore suggest wikipedia
514:
I would disagree that uploading under a free license protects you from large scale exploitation - I think every photographer has a pet story about how they got ripped - a good one would be Diliff and Apple. I think that providing photographers with this kind of basic protection and choice in how
410:
Two things. First, although there is still some debate about it in some quarters, in general CC NC licensing is not thought to prevent hosting on a site with advertising. So it would be possible for
Knowledge (XXG) to both have NC licensed images and to have advertising. I oppose both, by the
279:
It seems like WMF is willing to sacrifice the original primary goal of
Knowledge (XXG) (which is to create the best and most complete free encyclopaedia to the best of my knowledge) in order to stick to the (IMO misguided) ideology of free content for all, regardless of purpose or intent.
505:
essentially equivalent to PD - you're free to do what you want with the image and relicense as you please. At least if you explcitly say this image has rights reserved (ie you can't use it for a commercial purpose) people will pause and consider the terms before misusing the image.
299:- being an encyclopedia or being a free content resource. That's no longer making Knowledge (XXG) the best it could possibly be in terms of making the best freely (no cost) accessible encyclopedia; that's making Knowledge (XXG) as good as it can be subject to a certain ideology. --
99:
It has been suggested (Fir0002, Diliff and others) that semi-professional grade photographers are put off by the potential of their works being exploited commercially. These photographers my contribute their images to
Knowledge (XXG) if it had an option of NC licensing.
112:
As Fir0002 said, allowing NC (with an allowance for
Knowledge (XXG)'s commercial use in financial emergencies) licenses would encourage better photography, and would not compromise the encylopaedia in any way, as long as distribution was limited to Knowledge (XXG).
138:. And many photographers at Flickr license their photos as CC-NC. We're missing out on a lot of good, free content by not allowing CC-NC licensed material at Knowledge (XXG). So I'm very pleased to hear the Foundation is open to changing this policy. Cheers,
347:
I contribute because I believe I'm working towards the "sum of human knowledge" goal. Images are crucial to this goal. I'm sorry but the idea that we're pouring our work into a free content resource for others to exploit IMO makes the internet
104:
I think that providing photographers with this kind of basic protection and choice in how their images get used will strongly benefit the project (and by the project I mean a free online encyclopedia) with semi-pro grade photography.
274:
Largely in response to the above argument, it was contended (Fir0002, Diliff and others) that
Knowledge (XXG) is primarily a free (as in no cost) encyclopedia and providing high quality encyclopaedic content should be its priority.
226:
It has been argued (Fletcher, Kaldari, Eloquence) that
Knowledge (XXG) is rooted in the free content movement and therefore should be treated as a repository of free content which anyone can use for any purpose (including profit)
469:
contributions rather than photos. Text is obviously edited and chopped and changed a lot after it's created. However, images rarely undergo any major modifications after being created, and when those modifications
342:
Several photographers (Fir0002, Diliff, Muhammad and others) have pointed out they contribute because they believe in free knowledge but the idea of commercial companies exploiting their goodwill is distasteful
439:
With all respect to the author of the essay it strikes me as having been written from the wrong perspective and hence contains several errors. The key problem as I see it is that he's assuming contributors
474:
made it's very simple to upload the edit under the same license. Placing that NC image into a GFDL article is not going to cause any issues (just as using fair use images does not cause any issues).
193:
In response it was suggested (Fir0002) that the fact Knowledge (XXG) articles already contain a variety of individual licenses (from PD to FU) there shouldn't be any issues with incorporating NC
43:. The discussion there began with photographers who would prefer to license their contributions to WP as non-commercial , but expanded to the use of existing archival and (for example)
630:
484:
want bloggers and newspapers randomly using my images. If they want to use my image they at least owe me the courtesy of asking - and usually I'll give permission for it to be used.
71:
I don't know if this issue has been discussed before and I know village pump would probably be the place but I wanted some feedback from the photographers before taking it there. --
231:
Knowledge (XXG) is free as in speech, not (just) free as in beer -- free in the sense advocated by Stallman et al, where downstream users may use the content for any purpose.
634:
of the original discussion at WT:FPC is substantial, nuanced and well worth reading -- but it's bit intimidating to come to cold! Hence this introduction and summary.
173:
It has been suggested (Dragons Flight, Fletcher and others) that NC images would conflict with the GFDL text and make it impossible for them to coexist in an article.
359:
It is an issue of 'cosmic fairness' or 'karma' or however you want to describe it: Companies that exist to make a profit should not do so off the back of donations.
257:
Knowledge (XXG) has been a free culture project since it's inception.... "Free license" means doesn't mean free as in "no cost", it means free as in "free speech".
40:
134:
There are a number of historic archives that license their photographs for free noncommercial reuse under the CC-NC licenses -- a good example is the large
375:
All pictures I take, I upload to wikipedia if they have EV and I go out of my way to do this, not to make money bur for the provision of free knowledge.--
130:
It was further suggested (Pete Tillman, Muhammad Mahdi Karim) that there already exists large amounts of untapped NC content on flickr and other sources.
515:
thier images get used will strongly benefit the project (and by the project I mean a free online encyclopedia) with semi-pro grade photography. --
508:
As far as WMF using images commercially to help run the project I don't think anyone uploading under NC would have any problem with allowing this.
611:
of the issue from 2005 in my links above. You may want to read that as well for some of the reasoning behind prohibiting NC on Knowledge (XXG).
444:
their contributions to spread in numerous derivatives far beyond Knowledge (XXG). I for one dont. I contribute to Knowledge (XXG) as I think
434:
Counter-argument to Erik Moeller's essay (More or less agreed upon by Fir0002, ωαdεstεr16, Gnangarra, Diliff, Noodle Snacks, Tillman)
381:
155:
77:
246:
project. Its goal is education, yes, but it is also the creation of free content. Content that anyone can use for anything.
400:
32:
368:
289:
122:
149:
I have seen some great macro images at Flickr which we could have uploaded to wikipedia if only we had a NC license. --
376:
150:
72:
546:
313:
183:
251:
420:
308:
We are interested in freedom, but we still make compromises in the interest of encyclopedic breadth.
197:
different copyrights into it's articles - one more is not going to make a whole lot of difference. --
542:
309:
179:
236:
411:
way. :-) Second, the best way to understand my position on this is to read Erik Moeller's
616:
600:
559:
330:
262:
247:
143:
135:
416:
365:
286:
119:
585:
574:
452:. I'm contributing to increase the informative value of the articles on Knowledge (XXG),
322:
608:
556:
52:
36:
579:
412:
399:
Knowledge (XXG)'s current policy on material licensed for non-commercial reuse is at
232:
612:
596:
516:
353:
326:
300:
258:
210:
198:
139:
106:
17:
325:, and figure out the best way to do this, preferably from the bottom up. Cheers,
323:
the primary objective of Knowledge (XXG) is to produce a high-quality encyclopedia
65:
536:
360:
281:
114:
48:
47:
NC-licensed images. This discussion attracted interest from such WP notables as
586:
Towards a Standard of Freedom:: Creative Commons and the Free Software Movement
41:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured picture candidates#Non commercial image license
580:
Creative Commons -NC Licenses Considered Harmful (Erik Moller's explanation)
395:
Prior discussions and present Knowledge (XXG) policy for NC-licensed content
591:
The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License
590:
465:
From what I gather he's dealing with derivative works in the context of
541:
the desire to have any photo at all of a difficult to obtain subject.
44:
27:
Proposal for introduction of NC licensed photos on Knowledge (XXG)
33:
Knowledge (XXG) policy on use of non-commercial licensed images
403:. NC-licensed material is presently defined as "non-free".
270:
Knowledge (XXG)'s priorities - encyclopedia or free content
31:
Several editors have proposed reopening the discussion of
490:
Again yes I do want to maintain my copyright indefinitely
269:
39:). The following discussion is being transferred from
169:
Integration of NC images with GFDL text in articles
456:to contribute to a general free content movement.
352:suck. Knowledge is cool, exploitation is sucky.--
222:Knowledge (XXG) should be free as in free content
582:-- this is the essay Jimbo recommends upthread.
459:Here's a few counterpoints to his objections:
8:
448:is a valuable resource as an encyclopedia
430:
242:Knowledge (XXG) is and always has been a
95:Potential to tap into new useful content
64:adopt a non commercial license such as
7:
624:Original thread of this discussion
24:
501:of uploading under an NC license.
338:Companies exploiting free content
401:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content
209:Note: an email has been sent to
213:to get a professional opinion
136:LA Times photo archive at UCLA
35:(for example, images licensed
1:
603:) 16:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
619:) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
609:Jimbo's original explanation
333:) 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
321:We do need to remember that
316:) 17:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
549:) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
423:) 20:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
265:) 15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
254:) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
239:) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
186:) 00:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
146:) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
648:
575:Jimbo's explanation (2006)
562:01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
390:20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
372:13:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
303:12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
217:Ideological Considerations
164:20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
86:05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
519:01:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
488:Existing copyright terms:
356:07:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
293:10:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
201:06:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
126:10:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
109:01:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
90:Practical Considerations
607:...I forgot to include
628:Please note that the
527:
526:
388:
371:
292:
162:
125:
84:
639:
480:As it happens I
463:Incompatibility:
431:
382:
363:
284:
156:
117:
78:
647:
646:
642:
641:
640:
638:
637:
636:
626:
406:
397:
340:
272:
224:
219:
171:
97:
92:
61:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
645:
643:
625:
622:
621:
620:
594:
593:
588:
583:
577:
572:
568:
567:
564:
563:
551:
550:
543:Dragons flight
531:
530:
529:
528:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
509:
506:
502:
491:
485:
475:
436:
435:
425:
424:
396:
393:
392:
391:
373:
357:
339:
336:
335:
334:
318:
317:
310:Dragons flight
305:
304:
295:
294:
271:
268:
267:
266:
255:
240:
223:
220:
218:
215:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
188:
187:
180:Dragons flight
170:
167:
166:
165:
147:
128:
127:
110:
96:
93:
91:
88:
60:
57:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
644:
635:
633:
632:
631:entire thread
623:
618:
614:
610:
606:
605:
604:
602:
598:
592:
589:
587:
584:
581:
578:
576:
573:
570:
569:
566:
565:
561:
558:
553:
552:
548:
544:
539:
538:
533:
532:
518:
513:
510:
507:
503:
500:
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
479:
476:
473:
468:
464:
461:
460:
458:
457:
455:
451:
447:
443:
438:
437:
433:
432:
429:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
414:
409:
408:
407:
404:
402:
394:
389:
386:
380:
379:
374:
370:
367:
362:
358:
355:
351:
346:
345:
344:
337:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
315:
311:
307:
306:
302:
297:
296:
291:
288:
283:
278:
277:
276:
264:
260:
256:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:
234:
230:
229:
228:
221:
216:
214:
212:
200:
195:
194:
192:
191:
190:
189:
185:
181:
176:
175:
174:
168:
163:
160:
154:
153:
148:
145:
141:
137:
133:
132:
131:
124:
121:
116:
111:
108:
103:
102:
101:
94:
89:
87:
85:
82:
76:
75:
69:
67:
58:
56:
54:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
26:
19:
629:
627:
595:
535:
511:
498:
493:
487:
481:
477:
471:
466:
462:
453:
449:
445:
441:
405:
398:
384:
377:
349:
341:
327:Pete Tillman
273:
248:Calliopejen1
244:free culture
243:
225:
211:User:MGodwin
208:
172:
158:
151:
140:Pete Tillman
129:
98:
80:
73:
70:
62:
30:
18:User:Fir0002
537:bright line
512:Conclusion:
478:Basic Uses:
417:Jimbo Wales
53:Erik Möller
49:Jimbo Wales
369:(Contribs)
290:(Contribs)
123:(Contribs)
557:Eloquence
494:Profit!:
378:Muhammad
233:Fletcher
152:Muhammad
74:Muhammad
613:Kaldari
597:Kaldari
517:Fir0002
354:Fir0002
301:Fir0002
259:Kaldari
199:Fir0002
178:GFDL.
107:Fir0002
59:Impetus
499:option
366:(Talk)
361:Diliff
287:(Talk)
282:Diliff
120:(Talk)
115:Diliff
45:Flickr
413:essay
66:CC-NC
37:CC-NC
16:<
617:talk
601:talk
547:talk
482:dont
467:text
450:only
442:want
421:talk
385:talk
331:talk
314:talk
263:talk
252:talk
237:talk
184:talk
159:talk
144:talk
81:talk
51:and
472:are
454:not
415:.--
350:not
446:it
364:|
285:|
118:|
105:--
55:.
615:(
599:(
560:*
545:(
419:(
387:)
383:(
329:(
312:(
261:(
250:(
235:(
182:(
161:)
157:(
142:(
83:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.