[WikiEN-l] Dead wikipedians and how to really make a project boring to death

[Ray Saintonge]

Kat Walsh wrote:

>On 7/27/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Silas Snider wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Except when process protects us from (potentially lenghty and costly)
>>>legal proceedings. Without a tag, it is not clear whether we have the
>>>right to even host the image.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>It would be nice if people who put up these claims about protecting us
>>had half a clue about what they are saying.  Such legal proceedings are
>>always possible no matter what we do.  So too is winning the big prize
>>in a national lottery.  If you sign a binding agreement to donate 50% of
>>that prize to WMF when you win it, I would suggest that the Board not
>>make that eventuality a prominent part of its future plans.
>>
>>Ec
>>    
>>
>
>I'd like to think I have at least half a clue, having seen loads of
>"you are using my copyrighted material, take it down or else"
>messages. (And then many more "hey, I wrote this press release, and
>you guys called me a copyright violator, take that down immediately."
>You just can't win.)
>
When such a request is made it does need to be investigated.  Sometimes 
that claim will be untenable.  A while back we had a complaint from 
someone who claimed that a picture of a deposed 1920s Saudi king was 
taken from his website.  The king died a few years later in Iraq.  It 
could be easily established with reference to Saudi and Iraqi law that 
the picture was in the public domain, and that our complainer had no 
claim to copyright.  Does it make sense to accede in these baseless 
circumstances.  If the person has a sensible case we should take it 
down, or if some individual Wikipedian wants to defend the inclusion we 
should ask for a formal takedown order with which we will comply. 

In your second example we should not be making public accusations that 
someone is in fact a copyright violator.  Public discussion of these 
situations should only speek of possible copyvios that are under 
investigations.  Outright direct accusations could open up a whole 
different kettle of problems..  We should also pursue wilful breaches of 
licence more aggresively.

>Most of them are just angry and will never actually go to the trouble
>of a lawsuit, sure. Some of them might. Considering the volume, not
>many of them would have to for it to be a huge waste of the limited
>resources of WMF. It's *possible* for people to attempt to sue us for
>all sorts of frivolous things even if we take as much care as
>possible, yes, but it's not the wisest course of action to invite it
>where we don't need to by failing to be responsible.
>
Allowing a person to continue with his frivolous suit is not a failure 
of responsibility.  Incurring enormous legal costs on a case that at a 
state level would belong in small claims court is not cost effective.  
If the suit is for serious money and frivolous, costs would be recoverable.

>However:
>
>In this case, there must be some sort of special case. Purist though I
>generally am, surely there must be some way to hang on to a few
>pictures of deceased editors and tag them appropriately to make their
>status clear. Considering all the copyright issues on the project, it
>would be a happy day if this were the most pressing of them. I would
>be loath for this to be some sort of precedent so that everyone and
>his dog wants an excuse to be a special case, but, well, really, I am
>OK with this particular image.
>
Any dog that actually wrot a Wikipedia article would be a special case. :-)

Ec