[Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

Thu May 4 14:08:33 UTC 2006

On 5/4/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> I really think the question has to be defined more specifically
> though.  What is Wikipedia trying to accomplish?  Are they trying to
> obey the laws of the countries they operate in, or are they willing to
> break those laws if they can get away with it?

I think we need to distinguish three possible outcomes:
a) A court rules against the Foundation
b) A court rules against the local chapter
c) A court rules against an individual contributor

And at least four risk factors:
1) copyright infringement
2) libel
3) pornography
4) other illegal content.

A careful evaluation of the combination of these factors, in addition
to the gravity of the case and its consequences for the encyclopedia
and our other projects, is what any response should be based on. For
instance, I think that outcome b) is absolutely unacceptable and must
be fought at almost any cost. Even in a trivial case, it makes sense
to go through the courts if the alternative is a precedent of chapter
liability.

We might ignore a national law that defines nudity as pornography,
fight a ruling which finds public domain reproductions to be
copyrightable, or accept a special case, like the copyright claim on
the Eiffel Tower light decorations, because it's not worth fighting.
Hopefully, our case by case answers will over time evolve into
reasonably general policies. That process can perhaps be sped up
through legal expert opinion, paid for if necessary.

Erik