Commons talk:Collages

Collages of incompatibly licensed images

While it's certainly easier and safer to create collages if all the images can be used under the same license, I don't think making collages of incompatibly licensed images (e.g. GFDL-only v. CC-BY-SA) is quite as impossible as the essay currently makes it seem.

In particular, most "viral" (a.k.a. "copyleft" or "share alike") free licenses contain an explicit exemption that prevents the "viral" clause from kicking in if the licensed work is merely bundled together with separate, independently licensed works. The GFDL, for example, calls such a bundle an "aggregate" in section 7, while CC-BY-SA calls them "collections" in section 1(b). Both are worded in such a way that a simple collage, where the component images are merely shown side by side and could easily be separated again, would seem to qualify under this exemption.

This might seem like stretching the definition a bit, but if so, it's something we're already doing: that exemption is all that lets us display virally licensed images on Commons (or Wikipedia, etc.) pages, even if the license of the image is not compatible with that of our page text.

Of course, if a collage is claimed to be an aggregate/collection of independent works, then the licenses of each of those component works must be indicated separately on the description page. Then again, given that most licenses (including CC-BY and CC-BY-SA) already require that the authors of each component be named, and that Commons policy requires source information for all the components, indicating the licenses separately isn't really that much additional work. In practice, I'd suggest putting all the applicable license templates in the "Licensing" section, and indicating in the file description (e.g. in the "Permission" part of the {{Information}} template) which license applies to which component image.

I think that this might be worth mentioning on the main essay page, but I figured it would still be best to discuss it here first before jumping in to meddle with someone else's essay. So, comments? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The line of reasoning set forth on Commons:Collages would prohibit any use of incompatibly licensed images together -- you could not, for example, create a WP page that had both GFDL and CC images. A typical printed work may have dozens of licenses; a hymnal will have hundreds. The only thing I would add above is that the montage/collage will have a license of its own and that also should be set forth in the permission section.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As part of a discussion of this issue applied to a specific image, I created Commons:Deletion requests/File:GermanyPSkyline-He.jpg/Example 2 which illustrates the absurdity of the position taken in this essay. Copyright law is not concerned with how images end up on a screen or printed page, only that they are properly licensed and attributed (if required by the license). Thus, combining images for convenience, as in the example, is perfectly OK.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How to guide

Someone recently asked how to make one so I added instructions to User:Canoe1967/Montages#Collage_process. I don't if anyone wants to copy edit it and add it. Collapsed form or a wikilink to a new essay/how to page may work as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)