legal paranoia (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Encarta article list)

Sun Sep 11 05:33:42 UTC 2005

I have always maintaied the a reasonable prima facie case for fair use 
is enough to sustain us as long as the copyright owner doesn't complain. 
A reasonable case would include having paid some attention to the law.

If or when he complains he will at least raise the standards.  Reviewing 
the circumstances and complying with his request at that point will cost 
us nothing.  We would only need to consider legal costs if we chose to 
resist at that point..

Of course there are always people who are willing to start law suits 
without any merit whatsoever; you can do nothing to prevent  those.

Ec

steve v wrote:

>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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On 8/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at 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. :)
>>    
>>