[Lexicog] copyright-free images for use in dictionary

[billposer at ALUM.MIT.EDU]

David Joffe wrote:

>> Another source of images that you can generally re-use is Wikipedia.
>> Images on Wikipedia all have associated licensing information and are
>> usually either public domain or with something like a Creative Commons
>> license, so most of them would be reusable in a dictionary. It is not
>> uncommon for them to be under licenses only allowing non-commercial
>> use, so the question would arise as to whether a particular dictionary
>> is a commercial use.

>One must just look *very* carefully at the specific licensing terms 
>of each particular image. Many people think Creative Commons is a 
>single license type, but it's actually a broad license category 
>encompassing many different options, and only the most liberally 
>licensed images would be allowed in a typical dictionary. Some might 
>require accreditation ("Attribution"). Some might disallow 
>commercial use. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons 
>for more info. Saying you can "generally re-use" Wikipedia images 
>somewhat gives the wrong impression.

I'm well aware that there are multiple Creative Commons licenses,
as indeed I indicated, and of course you've got to look at the
particular license associated with each image. However, I think
that your view is much too pessimistic. The great majority of
Wikipedia images whose license I have checked require only attribution
plus, often, non-commercial use. Contrary to your implication,
an attribution requirement is not an impediment to use in a
dictionary. I've had picture credit fields in my databases with
automatic generation of credits in the dictionary text for many years
and see no reason why this should be a problem for anyone else. 
 
>>From the perspective of these licenses, if it's on the shelves in a 
>bookstore or online store, it's commercial. If you charge people 
>money for copies of it (even if you don't technically make a 
>profit), it's probably commercial. Possible grey area might be 
>publishing it online with ads - actually no, that would likely also 
>be commercial use.

Actually, what constitutes "commercial use" as a matter of law
is not terribly clear, but in any case, what you actually need to
deal with is not the legal definition, which sets an upper bound on
what the copyright owner may require, but his or her actual intention.
The kind of people who post images on Wikipedia tend to be people
who would not want others to make a profit from their images without
obtaining their permission and compensating them but who would consider the inclusion of their images in a not-really-profit-making dictionary of a small language quite appropriate even if it is technically "commercial". In my own case, for example, if someone were to publish a $100 coffee table book of my photos of British Columbia, I'd want a cut, but if someone wants to use some of them in a dictionary or local history or some such thing of which they are a minor component and which is not really for profit, that's fine with me. Of course, if your dictionary might constitute a commercial publication it would be wise to contact the copyright holder and check.

Bill
 


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:lexicographylist-digest at yahoogroups.com 
    mailto:lexicographylist-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/