[Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

Fri Jul 14 06:39:58 UTC 2006

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>>Robert Scott Horning
>>>
>>>The same thing (I would hope) could apply to the WMF if there is a GFDL 
>>>violation.  As it stands right now, by disclaiming copyright, all the 
>>>WMF can do to enforce a flagarant copyright violation of Wikipedia 
>>>content is sit on the sidelines and act as a cheerleader.  Brad would be 
>>>legally excluded from even being able to offer advise.  If you are an 
>>>individual contributor and want to defend the copyright of content that 
>>>you wrote, you would have to hire your own counsel, as would each 
>>>seperate contributor who would want to join in the legal defense.
>>>      
>>>
>>Being agent should permit WMF to act.  The potential complications if 
>>the individuals had to do everything themselves boggle the mind.  There 
>>is also the question that registration of a copyright is a prerequisite 
>>for prosecuting any infringers.  Whose responsibility is it to ensure 
>>that all needed registrations happen?
>>    
>>
>Registration is certainly nice in GFDL and most copyleft enforcement 
>because it sets up a minimum statutory penalty if you can prove 
>copyright infringement.  Otherwise you can only seek actual damages. 
> Note that the registration must take place before the infringement 
>occurs.  This is something I've discussed at length on this mailing list 
>before, with many individuals on this list quite against formal 
>registration, and deliberate obfuscation of user information that would 
>make such registration difficult to impossible.
>
>All I'm pointing out is that the situation right now is exactly up to 
>individual contributors, and you are correct, it boggles the mind to 
>think what is really necessary to do this enforcement.
>
The problem with actual damages is that they are measured in monetary 
terms and need to be proven.  Since we all give our services for free 
there is no damage to be proven.  Only statutory damages make sense.  Of 
course anyone with a copyright interest in a work should be legally 
entitled to file a registration.  Those with more radical views about 
the nature of free content should have no business preventing others 
from protecting their own rights.  If they want to remain anonymous that 
would still be their choice.  The material that should be registered 
could be in the form of a data dump onto CD(s) that are sent monthly or 
on some other regular basis.

>>>Frankly, I think this is an ugly situation, although it is "safe" for 
>>>the WMF and from a legal liability perspective, I do understand why the 
>>>decision to not claim copyright was done.  The liability instead rests 
>>>on the individual contributors.  Each time you add some content to 
>>>Wikimedia projects, particularly if you use the same account for each 
>>>contribution and are prominent in the "community", you put yourself into 
>>>harm's way legally speaking.  You can be held responsible for the 
>>>content that you added, or even failed to edit out when you made a minor 
>>>change to a page.  In other words, this approach to playing it safe 
>>>really is just transfering liability from the WMF to individual users.
>>>
>>>That really should be motivation to being a major contributor to 
>>>Wikimedia projects, isn't it?
>>>      
>>>
>>I have no problem with the idea of WMF being "safe", and that uploaders 
>>should be legally responsible for the material they add.  I really don't 
>>agree that a person who has acted as a mere grammatical editor has 
>>published anything substantive.  Such an editor bases his entire effort 
>>on what is there in front of him; the research needed to establish the 
>>legality of the substance is beyond his frame of reference.
>>
>I'm not saying that a person who adds some minor edit to a Wikipedia 
>article that is then brought up in a libel lawsuit is necessarily going 
>to be completely held responsible for everything in that article, but 
>liability is certainly there to an extent and it wouldn't surprise me if 
>your name was brought up in a formal lawsuit that simply decided to go 
>after every contributor in the history of the article, even if all you 
>did was revert blatant vandalism at one point acting in good faith. 
> That would still take some time to explain even what reverting 
>vandalism is to a judge, who has no clue about MediaWiki software and 
>wouldn't even really understand the role of admins or vandalism patrols 
>in Wikimedia projects.  I'm sure such a judge in a lawsuit like that 
>would learn real fast, but you would have to get a lawyer and defend 
>yourself first.  As the John Siegenthaler situation suggests, there may 
>be some individuals who really get bent out of shape for what content is 
>in Wikipedia and don't care to seek redress from within the Wikimedia 
>community of users and editors.  And if you reverted one form of 
>vandalism, the question would be raised as to why you let other 
>blatantly wrong facts about a person or company go unchecked.
>
>I hope that nobody really has to deal with these issues, and I'm also 
>sure that if there was a problem that a "legal defense fund" could be 
>set up very quickly to help out Wikimedia users who through no fault of 
>their own got tied up with these issues.  
>
>I was involved briefly with the DVD de-CSS software and "dodged the 
>bullet" when my involvement was only peripheral to the lawsuits that 
>were thrown around by the MPAA and the DVD Fourm for cracking the 
>encryption used on DVD-Video discs.  And this was GPL'd software that 
>the only justification for filing the lawsuit was a violation of a trade 
>secret by somebody who did reverse engineering of software and didn't 
>have any affiliation with any company producing DVD software.  I do know 
>some of the people who were dragged into court over that issue, and it 
>was a pain to try and deal with.  With the technical books that are on 
>Wikibooks, I don't see a reason why that sort of situation might not 
>repeat itself again but with written publications instead.... even if 
>the situation turns out to be perfectly legal.  And the liability would 
>indeed rest on the contributors in this situation.
>
I'm not one to go around stiffled by the fear of lawsuits.  I don't add 
anything that I would not be willing to defend if the situation arose.  
I had never heard of Seigenthaler before he became a Wikipedia issue.  
If I had I would have been unlikely to enter into a detailed search for 
corroborating evidence because I would not have been sufficiently 
interested in the subject.  On the other hand, I could imagine myself 
making minor grammatical and spelling changes.  I already do a bit of 
that when I'm otherwise just reading the article for information.

I'm also one of those people who would prefer to fight his own case 
without hiring lawyers   Whether someone would be so impractical as to 
sue everybody on the author list remains to be seen, but it could be 
fun. ;-)

Ec