I wonder to what degree some of the lawyers (the
cautious half) were taking into consideration the
pragmatic issue of getting drowned in legal fees,
rather than the legal merits of the issue.
A commie (as in 'mercial) encyclopedia might have an
interest in suing Wikipedia, even if it is on the
apparent flimsy basis of a claimed "derivative work,"
(from a list, no less).
I hear lawyers can cost a lot of money.
SV
--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
>For example, as part of my research, I have
several "article lists"
>from Encarta, Britannica and some other
CD-ROM
encyclopedias, but I've
>hesitated to make them public or contribute
them
to WP, for exactly
>this reason. Talking to a few lawyer folks on
my
campus has
>effectively convinced me I would not have a
strong case for fair
>use/fair dealing. I'm willing to (and
would like
to be) proved wrong.
But the only way to prove you wrong would involve
having the whole
matter end up in court.
I know, case law sucks, doesn't it? Such is the
nature of fair use. :)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.