[Wikipedia-l] An FDL test case: McFly

Thu Feb 12 07:30:32 UTC 2004

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:34 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] An FDL test case: McFly

> Erik wrote:
> >Under this interpretation, Anthony is clearly in violation.
> >If he refuses to make the necessary changes I strongly
> >recommend taking legal action as otherwise this could
> >easily become a precedent for third parties to use
> >Wikipedia content without giving proper credit. We should
> >probably send a warning letter anyway because of the
> >"this license extends solely .."  part.
>
> Yes. I agree this is a violation since our copyright policy page clearly
> indicates what actions need to be done to satisfy the GNU FDL
requirements.
> Each article is headed by its own history section and is thus a separate
work.
> But I don't think legal action will be needed if Anthony uses an ISP to
host
> his website. All we need is a takedown letter sent to the ISP if Anthony
> refuses.
>
> >The way I know Anthony he won't listen to anyone without
> >legal standing. I therefore would like to ask Alex in particular
> >to take a look at this case and help in preparing the necessary
> >letter.
>
> IANAL and this is only my opinion, but I no longer trust what Alex has to
say
> about copyright law. He has on several occasions now indicated that
Wikipedia
> is not a copyrightable work! I think such a position is outrageous, but
that is
> just my opinion and not a statement of fact.

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying mav.

> Alex wrote:
>
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Do_fair_use_images_violate_the_GFDL%3F&diff=26034&oldid=26012
>
> Excerpt:
> |The fact is that words in a dictionary are not subject to copyright
> |and if an encyclopedia is the conceptual extension of a dictionary
> |applied to concepts, theories, facts, historical developments then
> |if Wikipedia is truly collaborative writing then the work that is
> |created will be so generic as to be beyond the powers of copyright.
>
> I for one find it offensive to imply that what we do here is not
sufficiently
> creative to warrent copyright protection.

That is not what I am saying. If it is really so fact oriented then the
expression of those facts may be very limited, and really the "ideal"
of NPOV is that all factual positions are included. I think you are
really reading too much into my discussion and you are taking it
out of context. I am talking about the limits of fair use and why
we do not have to worry about such things. You really do not get
it. I am sorry you are so quick to jump on my words out of context.
What I am saying is that if we use factual material in Wikipedia
and it is really information that is beyond the reaches of copyright
law then we do not even need to worry about fair use. I think
rather than accuse me of something you beleive is true, it is much
better to try and understand what I am saying before making
glossed over generalizations about what "I" believe. Why don't
you ask me directly rather than talk about me behind my back?
Is that really in the collegial spirit that we call Wikipedia? I don't
think so, but since you didn't understand what I said, I can't
blame you for misintepreting it, can I?

> Delirium wrote:
> >On the other hand, we've indicated intent to publish a paper
> >version of the encyclopedia, which would very clearly be a
> >single document.  Or are we claiming it wouldnt' be?  If each
> >Wikipedia article is a separate document, any paper version
> >we produce would have to have a list of five authors and the
> >"history" section on *every single* article, which would take
> >up a pretty large percentage of the total encyclopedia.
>
> I don't think so. Just print out the network location of the original. If
that
> is not enough then we would eventually have to develop a bot that would
extract
> top 5 author info from each article and place it, along with the article's
URL,
> in the footer on each page in a small font. It would take one, maybe two
lines
> at the bottom of every page.

My problem is with the "we" everyone here thinks there is a "we" when
the "we" only exists conceptually, not legally. If what JamesDay says is
true, then only the five principle authors of any page have any standing to
question what goes on in a fork. I, Mav, Delerium or any other Wikipedian
volunteer can't really say that they have a problem with someone copying
a page because they have no complaint against compliance. Since the
copyright owners (in the JamesDay intepretation) are not "us" but "them"
only "they" have standing to complain. There is nowhere included any
provision that requires that Wikipedia be mentioned by downstream
users, Wikipedia is not an author in this interpretation of the GFDL (which
I do not agree with) and as an extension ADP probably can do what he
wants because the authors of the article are the only ones who have
a complaint against him, not the abstract "Wikipedia" that does not own
any copyright but is only a vehicle for allowing people to have joint
copyright. Indeed if ADP contributes to each article he can license it
anyway he wants under the joint copyright theory as joint copyright
holders can have nonexclusive licenses. humm. Food for thought.
As Boorstein states:A joint owner cannot sue his co-owner for
infringement".  Boorstein on Copyright sect. 3.02 citing Dead Kennedys
v. Biafra 37 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (ND Cal., 1999)(co-owners of copyright,
and their licensees, cannot be liable to one another for infringement of
that copyright).  As the GFDL allows liberal licensing anyone who
complies in a reasonable fashion with the license can never been
liable for infringement.  There is no contract between the user and
Wikipedia except what is in the GFDL, if the user has a reasonable
intpretation (and as they did not draft the GFDL the GFDL will be
intrepreted liberally in their favor) then the upstream authors can't
really complain much about a downstream user.

Alex756