Anthony wrote:
Free licenses are generally written from the point of view that
modifications to works constitute derivative works, and not works of joint
authorship. Either is certainly possible. The key legal question is
whether the authors intended to collaborate on a single work
(Lennon/McCartney), or if one author created a work which was then modified
by another author (a movie created from a screenplay).
It's by no means clear which better fits what happens on Wikipedia. I could
see things going either way, but considering the use of the GFDL I'd lean
toward believing that the *intent* of most authors was for each subsequent
edition to be a derivative work, and not a work of joint authorship. And
that's what matters, the intent of the authors (unfortunately, some authors
probably intended different from other authors).
Purely on the question of what extra-wiki artistic analogue would
be most apposite to the current state of affairs, might I propose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_the_Rising_Sun
Wikipedia is very much jamming on each others contributions, with
participants being variously incensed or exhilarated by others
appropriating, re-using, re-invigorating old content. Personally I am
glad that very few of my early contributions have remained in any
form at all as live content. What supplanted them has been much
better.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
