Natrij
Thank you for your message and I apologize for taking so long to respond.
The Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license is a better alternative but it still presents some concern.
We would like to use the photograph in educational resources that are sold to students, parents and/or schools. The various licenses that are used for Wikipedia content seem to require that we allow our work that will be associated with your photograph to be reproduced under the same license (which means basically that it can be reproduced freely). We cannot risk that interpretation.
Of course we can comply with most of the terms of the licenses. We would be pleased to make sure that the photograph is credited to you and otherwise provide the source of the photograph, (unless you prefer that we did not) as you may require. We can state that the photograph is reproduced under an agreement with you. We could include a brief statement that the photograph can be further reproduced under the license of your preference. We cannot offer the rest of our work under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license (as the Share Alike provision of the Creative Commons license could be interpreted), nor can we reproduce the various licenses in our resources (though we could provide the url where a copy of the license could be found).
Please let me know if this is something that you would consider and, if so, your requirements.
- Hello again!
- Given the commercial nature of the products, your initial concerns about the use of CC-BY-SA are understandable, but be assured that you have nothing to fear. The legal code (i.e., THE license) of CC-BY-SA is quite explicit about cases like yours. Section 1b reads:
"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
- And then in section 4a (restrictions):
This Section 4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License.
- Even in the case that you modify the image, for example by marking something with a circle, putting text into it, changing colors, removing background etc., and display the modified version in a book, this still does not mean that you must licence the whole book under CC-BY-SA. Actually, modifying the image just means doing the modification and releasing the image to yourself under the same license, at which point you are essentially in the same position as using the original. The license even mentions this particular case, too (section 4b):
You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons Compatible License. [...] This Section 4(b) applies to the Adaptation as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Adaptation itself to be made subject to the terms of the Applicable License.
- I assure you that the Creative Commons licences were carefully written with cases like yours in mind. Lastly, if you still have any doubts, we can arrange it so that I give an explicit permission to use the image in a particular work. Natrij (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)