You can find more detailed explanations of the attribution requirements on Wikimedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
Be aware that, if you use an image with a "Share Alike" license, use of the image "contaminates" your own work, in the sense that you must allow people to take your book, freely modify it, build on it, etc. (as long as they acknowledge you as a source). This may or may not be what you want. If you want to use an image without contamination, the image must be either in the public domain, or have a license that requires attribution, but without the "share alike" requirement, meaning that you can use the image, but still retain copyright on your own work.
You can contact the uploader of the image you linked to here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ex13
It is usually possible to get in touch with pretty much anyone on Wikimedia via their user page.
In general, if there isn't any detail about the author of an image, it will be sufficient to say that the image was sourced from Wikimedia Commons; if you include a link to the Wikimedia page for the image, you will be in the clear.
Excellent point - thank you!
Yes...I'm happy to "share alike" the text of the book, and indeed to give it all away fro free. But it makes no sense for me to share the embedded movies or the "source file".
I will make a point of contacting the content owners individually now that you showed me how.
I cannot find any details about the idea of 'contamination', in that my own photographs would not be copyright protected if my iBook contained a mixture of CC photos and my own.
Can you please direct me to this statement on the Wikipedia website?
Most pictures carry a statement such as shown below:-
This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Wa at the German Wikipedia project. This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible:
Wa grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
العربية | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | ไทย | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体) | 中文(繁體) | +/−
I think Michi is referring specifically to that "Share Alike" version of the license. On picture example I gave...
Referring to this statement:
"share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."
The second part of this sentence is the key, I think.
But I don't claim to understand copyright law :-)
What a relief ......... The share alike licence is entirely different and only applies to logos, book cover illustrations and some other media. The symbol beside these is entirely different to the C with a ring around it and a line through the symbol, so this will alert uses to its special and restricted use!!!!!!!
What a relief ......... The share alike licence is entirely different and only applies to logos, book cover illustrations and some other media.
This is incorrect. The share alike license applies whenever the copyright owner has decided that this is the license under which he/she wants to make an image available on Wikimedia Commons. Which license to use is entirely up to the uploader and has nothing to do with the purpose for which an image is used.
If you use material from Wikimedia in your book and want to retain copyright on the work, you need to understand the differences and choose your media accordingly. A single "share alike" licensed image will contaminate your entire work, forcing you to relinquish copyright.
Do not use material from Wikimedia Commons unless you have read the licences for the material you want to use and understand their implications.
Thanks for your clarification. I had not come across any "share alike" photos on Wikipedia. The notes on the site only mention logos etc. I could not find any details of contamination but can appreciate that Wikipedia would be concerned about infringement of this type of license.
I only use the "copyright free" images which have the special logo beside them. The photos are given attribution below in the widget with the name of the author. This would seem to satisfy the requirements.
Thanks for the warning about "share alike"!!!!!!
Most of the Wikimedia images are released under one of the Creative Commons licenses. For these, anything that has "ShareAlike" in the name causes contamination. Anything with "NoDerivs" in the name means that you can publish the image only if you don't change it. Anything with "NonCommercial" in the name means that you cannot use your work commercially. (This does not apply to any of the images on Wikimedia, because Wikimedia requires a license that permits commercial use.) All of the Creative Commons licences have "Attribution" in the name, which means that you must attribute the image as specified by the uploader.
The other way you can use an image is if it is in the public domain. In that case, you can just use it, and you don't need to attribute it to anyone.
Other licenses you may find are the GPL and LGPL, but they apply only to software.
Some Wikimedia images also use the Free Art License, which is essentially an attribution license.
Thanks for more clarification.
I was wondering about my own photographs in an iBook - should I put a copyright symbol below each and my name?
Or is it sufficient to mention copyright in the preface?
When students are using the textbook in schools they may wish to capture an image and use it in a written project. Should the Preface contain guidance on this and what would you suggest?
I don't think there is a need to indicate copyright for each and every image. I have something like "All images in this book are copyright 2012 Michi Henning, except where indicated." For videos, I use a watermark with the copyright statement.
I'm not a copyright expert, so take this with a grain of salt. But for somethign like images used by students, I think "fair use" provisions would apply. Fair use doesn't exist in some countries (Mali is one example), so if you really want to be sure, you should check for your country.
For a student project, I don't think it matters pragmatically. "Ubi non accusator ibi non iudex." (Where there is no accuser, there is no judge.) Seeing that you own the copyright and these are students who you (presumably) want to be able to use the material, there is no problem.
To quote MichiHenning:
"Be aware that, if you use an image with a "Share Alike" license, use of the image "contaminates" your own work, in the sense that you must allow people to take your book, freely modify it, build on it, etc. (as long as they acknowledge you as a source)."
This is absolutely incorrect, and is neither the spirit nor the intention of Creative Commons Share Alike licensing. Using an image as an illustration does not "contaminate" a written work by creating a derivative of that image (and thus force you to share your entire book for free). If you do not change that image (combine it with others into a new image, process it in some way, or otherwise change THE IMAGE ITSELF) . . . and if you give any required attribution . . . then the original image in the same format is still available for all to freely use. It is the image itself that is the original licensed work . . . and you are free to use it. If you change it, then *IT* (the new image) must be "Shared Alike" . . . not your entire book.