[WikiEN-l] RE: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 41

Sat May 14 22:13:11 UTC 2005

help

 -Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org]
On Behalf Of wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:56 PM
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 41

Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
	wikien-l at 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 at Wikipedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	wikien-l-owner at 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 at telus.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <42860ECA.7010908 at telus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

David Gerard wrote:

>Phil Boswell (phil.boswell at 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 at telus.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: minorityreport at bluebottle.com, English Wikipedia
	<wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <42861772.1010905 at 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 at bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
	<42197.62.252.0.4.1116096828.squirrel at 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 at bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
	<53573.62.252.0.4.1116096956.squirrel at happy.minority-report.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

geni said:
> On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at 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 at bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
	<12610.62.252.0.4.1116097250.squirrel at 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 at bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
	<39539.62.252.0.4.1116097574.squirrel at 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 at gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <98dd099a05051412431a2bc1b4 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5/13/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at 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 at hackish.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <42867249.2030301 at hackish.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>geni said:
>  
>
>>On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at 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 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <550ccb820505141456da5d802 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5/15/05, Delirium <delirium at 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 at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 41
****************************************