On 20/08/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose you're free to challenge Nokia on
the basis of your theory
> that their usage is purely decorative. I suppose though we could expand
> the notion of fair use to anything where starting an action would make
> the plaintiff look silly. :-P
That would fall under de minimis, not fair use. And,
in this case, the
violation probably is de minimis, that doesn't stop it being a
violation, it just means it's not worth the court's time. But, as I've
said before, this isn't really a discussion about a Nokia box, it's
about the principles behind it.
In this case, I suggest the principle of "what would be good for the
project?" Ask Nokia nicely to acknowledge the usage, even if they
could get away with not doing so, and they get niceness and we get
niceness.
And, importantly it sets the tone for others. Note the press tone from
Wikimedia about the WikiScanner - we don't make suggestions that
companies be burned in effigy, we just suggest ways to set the record
straight without an apparent conflict of interest. One thing company
PR people have just learnt is that "conflict of interest" is public
perception, not just words on a Wikipedia policy page.
There's considerable public good will to be gained from being seen to
play nice with Wikipedia, and - as the frankly quite boggling wave of
press coverage of the WikiScanner has just demonstrated - considerable
public oppobrium to be gained from being seen not to. We don't even
have to mention sticks, just carrots ;-)
- d.