[WikiEN-l] Re: w to properly use articles from an outside GFDL source?

Sat May 29 10:50:34 UTC 2004

And again, any discussion of changes of licensing on wikipedia projects 
should really really really be a discussion involving all wikipedias.

Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
> Regarding the legal risk of violating GFDL (and thereby someone's 
> copyright) on en. Wikipedia:
> 
> American Wikipedians are reasonably safe, I suppose. I am not sure about 
> non-American en. Wikipedians, since that may entail implications on 
> international jurisdiction and choice of law.
> 
> Whenever we speak of legal risks associated with GFDL, we have to face 
> the issue that at least in English Wikipedia, there seems to be no 
> official, agreeed-upon interpretation of the GFDL (what is "work"? who 
> are the copyright holders? are images under GFDL? is Page history the 
> history as in GFDL? etc.)
> 
> But that aside, here are the defenses that I find quite significant:
> 
> 1) We only need substantial, reasonable compliance rather than a strict, 
> literal compliance.
> (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2003-November/000084.html 
> and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Michael_Snow/Candidate_statement_and_discussion&diff=3741153&oldid=3739719)
> 
> 2) One has to register his copyright work. Unless otherwise, he may not 
> be able to sue the violator in a Federal Court.
> 
> (http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Do_fair_use_images_violate_the_GFDL%3F&diff=26058&oldid=26049 
> * and 
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-February/000261.html)
> 
> * A sidenote - Although Alex's remark there is a bit agressive, the 
> matter is now solved between the involved parties, as I understand.
> 
> 3) Coauthors of a work cannot sue each other regarding copyright violation.
> (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-February/000261.html)
> 
> 4) The moral rights are not protected under the U.S. copyright law much, 
> so that even if a lawsuit is brought up, there won't be much of a damage 
> to be found.
> (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-February/014275.html)
> 
> 5) In addition, if Terms of Use becomes effective sometime in the 
> future, as proposed in the expanded version, it may prevent any lawsuit 
> between two Wikipedians. See the arbitration clause in the following page:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Terms_of_use_(proposal)
> 
> 
> All combined, it seems that current practice is reasonably safe for 
> American Wikipedians. Yet it seems quite possible, for example, a troll 
> registers a work and tries to sue someone who strip attribution from his 
> contribution by moving it to meta or a talk page from village pump.
> 
> Also, some features of the U.S. courts are said to be riskier or a bit 
> unpredictable in comparison to Japanese courts. (See: 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.legal/263)
> 
> And last, but not the least, I am not sure if it is okay to just say 
> that we should keep violating GFDL just because it cannot be held 
> accountable in court.
> 
> So again, it is better to have something like the PD license in palce 
> even from at this point, I am inclined to think.
> 
> (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. And the citations I provided above are 
> not legal opinions, either.)
> 
> Best,
> 
> Tomos
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Learn to simplify your finances and your life in Streamline Your Life 
> from MSN Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0405streamline.armx