help
-Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org]
On Behalf Of wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:56 PM
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 41
Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Ray Saintonge)
2. Re: RE: Corrected (Ray Saintonge)
3. Re: RE: Corrected (Tony Sidaway)
4. Re: RE: Corrected (Tony Sidaway)
5. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Tony Sidaway)
6. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Tony Sidaway)
7. Fwd: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected (Fastfission)
8. Re: RE: Corrected (Delirium)
9. Re: RE: Corrected (Skyring)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 07:44:26 -0700
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <42860ECA.7010908(a)telus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
David Gerard wrote:
Phil Boswell (phil.boswell(a)gmail.com) [050513 18:42]:
>Unless I'm very much mistaken, the idea of constructing an encyclopaedia
is
>to gather together crumbs of information that
individually are not
>particularly helpful to construct a whole which is.
>There seems to be a group of people who are intent on pulling out the
centre
>of the loaf, leaving just the crust which will then
implode under its own
>weight.
>The attitude of "well I've never heard of him so he can't deserve an
>article" is entirely too prevalent and needs to be addressed before we
turn
into just a
list of people *everybody* knows about already.
That's what I mean by "immune system turning into autoimmune
disease".
I also find the argument that Wollmann's article was VFDed therefore we
must purge all mention of him to be utterly unconvincing.
The add thing about this is that the article about Wollmann could be a
vehicle for some objective facts in the matter. That's better than
finding things piecemeal on the mailing list.
Ec
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 08:21:22 -0700
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <42861772.1010905(a)telus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
should review the four criteria
for fair use found in U.S. law.
Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
The four criteria provide an objective and accessible framework for
evaluating fair use. This does not mean that we are imposing US law.
If you can point to criteria from elsewhere that accomplish the same
thing, that would be fine too.
Ec
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 19:53:48 +0100 (BST)
From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<42197.62.252.0.4.1116096828.squirrel(a)happy.minority-report.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Skyring said:
What sort of payouts have been involved?
Usually the terms of the settlements are not disclosed. One serial
plaintiff has made settlements for published amounts varying from USD
8,000 to around USD 1,000,000, so this is potentially pretty serious.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 19:55:56 +0100 (BST)
From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<53573.62.252.0.4.1116096956.squirrel(a)happy.minority-report.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
geni said:
On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway
<minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
should review the four criteria
for fair use found in U.S. law.
Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that
state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 20:00:50 +0100 (BST)
From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<12610.62.252.0.4.1116097250.squirrel(a)happy.minority-report.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Ray Saintonge said:
Interesting observation. Whatever the merits of their cases
Scientology is probably in a much better position than Wollmann when
it comes to the experience and funding needed to carry on a suit.
Maybe that experience has also taught them when not to sue. ;-)
They tend to sue under the laws of copyright and trade secrets. Their
lawsuits do seem to be counter-productive, but the effect on the defendant
is usually disproportionately brutal.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 20:06:14 +0100 (BST)
From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<39539.62.252.0.4.1116097574.squirrel(a)happy.minority-report.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Ray Saintonge said:
If both
parties fail to appear the case
would be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Yes, he'd need to retain and brief counsel to prepare and present a pro
forma complaint alongside evidence to satisfy the court. He'd have to
ensure that the defendant was served. He wouldn't have to show up in
court.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 15:43:09 -0400
From: Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <98dd099a05051412431a2bc1b4(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/13/05, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote:
Like how exactly? How would a picture of Mickey be
used in any
other way than to illustrate an article about animated characters
or Disney?
Fair use is for commentary and criticism. In an ideal form, a
Wikipedia article with photos of Mickey might count as "commentary".
There is also the question of whether or not we would be using it in a
way which deprives Disney of any income, which is more open to
interpretation, and the question of whether or not someone visiting
Wikipedia would be confused as to whether or not it was affiliated
with Disney ("Sure," the lawyers say, "it says Wikipedia up in the
corner. But it says 'Mickey Mouse' at the top of the page, and then
goes on to describe it in an authoratative manner, with copyrighted
images all over the place!"). Are we using it as a commentary on
Mickey Mouse or just using it to illustrate and describe Mickey Mouse?
As I understand it, "fair use" does not necessarily apply if you just
want to illustrate an encyclopedia article on a subject, whether you
charge for it or not.
Images are a much more difficult media to deal with than is text. Text
can be easily re-written or paraphrased and be a legally distinct new
form. Images are more difficult, and the way the courts rule can be
highly arbitrary (viz. the cases at
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.htm
l#3).
Let's move beyond Disney and to another pet peeve of mine: historical
images by news corporations. For example, the wonderful image of Bryan
and Darrow at [[Scopes Trial]]. Iconic image, very famous! But also
likely owned by a stock photography company, i.e. Corbis or Getty
Images. These guys make their entire income on licensing pictures and
asserting their copyright on them -- Wikipedia "giving them away for
free" seems like it would definitely fall into a questionable
category. Is it "commentary" on the copyrighted work itself, or are we
just using it to illustrate an article?
One of WP's most useful defenses is to become even
more popular
and respected. We want to be in a position where all the judges
in the building have to recuse themselves because they and their
clerks consult WP on a daily basis, or have them find lawyers in
contempt for merely suggesting that WP has any evil intentions. :-)
Evil need not be intended -- if a company makes its money by the
selling of copyrighted material and we "give it away", that's
problematic. Robin Hood wasn't evil, but he certainly broke the law.
Perhaps more realistically, we want to be so credible
and widely
used that merely publishing the C&D letter on the main page will
cause the foolhardy company to get deluged with hate mail and
backpedal within 24 hours, disavowing any knowledge of the law
firm that sent the letter. We've shown we can raise thousands of
dollars within a few days just by asking; that's a reservoir of
good will that can help us deal with a wide variety of threats.
I don't think this will cut it -- some of these companies (RIAA, MPAA)
don't seem to have any problems with negative PR. At least, that's
what I took away from Lawrence Lessig's book on copyright law ("Free
Culture", available at
http://free-culture.org/freecontent/) which I
found quite interesting thought a bit scary.
Personally I think the best approach would be to have a much stricter
rule about "fair use" for pictoral and sound content (the latter
doesn't seem to be as much of an issue, yet). Again, the effects of
"fair use" and the reach of copyright seems to vary widely by the
media in question: it is easy to make text "free", it is hard to make
images (especially historical or commercial) "free". This might mean
sacrificing some of our aesthetic appearances and make us look a bit
different from the standard "encyclopedia" in many respects -- we
don't pay the sorts of licensing fees that EB pays for this sort of
content.
I think this is one of the things WP is going to get bit on the butt
about at some point, but hopefully I'm wrong!
FF
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 17:48:57 -0400
From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <42867249.2030301(a)hackish.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Tony Sidaway wrote:
geni said:
On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway
<minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
should review the four criteria
for fair use found in U.S. law.
Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that
state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point. UK courts take the
view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications. For
example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they
would not be able to sue in UK courts.
-Mark
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 07:56:02 +1000
From: Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <550ccb820505141456da5d802(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/15/05, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
>geni said:
The servers are in florida as such we are subject to
the law of that
state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point. UK courts take the
view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications. For
example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they
would not be able to sue in UK courts.
I don't think any court would see Wikipedia as being a newspaper.
--
Peter in Canberra
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 41
****************************************