[Wikipedia-l] Jennifer's dresses

[Ray Saintonge]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
>>If a copyright owner would complain (did this ever happen?), only Jimmy
>>is at risk,
>>
>
>In one sense, this is true.  But in another sense the project is at risk.
>
>Realistically speaking, the odds of anyone trying to make a big deal
>out of anything that we are doing is very remote.  From a legal
>standpoint, as an ISP, I'm only required to "takedown" material put up
>by users upon a formal complaint from a copyright holder.  Of course
>I would do that in a heartbeat -- we're not here to fight the Napster fight,
>that's for sure!
>
>But other than direct legal action, there are other serious risks of
>taking too lax an attitude about copyright violations.  We purport to
>relicense the content under the GNU FDL.  Without some reasonable
>assurances that our content is legitimately unencumbered, it will be
>difficult for others to take our content and redistribute it in other
>media.
>
>Nonetheless, I most certainly echo Lars' sentiment that being gentle to
>newcomers is important to the wiki way.  We're a community of love and
>co-operation, not controversy and fighting.
>
>--Jimbo
>
I clearly side with Lars and Jimmy on this one.  Copyright law, with so 
many big corporations and institutions trying to protect their turf has 
become something that goes beyond understanding unless you have 
specialized legal training.  The only ones that can afford that are 
those same big corporations and institutions that are also able to apply 
economies of scale. If more than one country is involved the situation 
is even worse.

We also encounter sites on the net where the site owner has made a 
dubious claim.  The Republican claim to copyright for the 1911 
encyclopaedia is a case in point.  (The pop-up that I get every time 
asking to join the Republican anti-terrorism campaign at least suggests 
that they have a big hand in it.)  Just because someone says that 
something is copyright, doesn't mean that is.  

Just yesterday I was looking at a site put up by the University of 
Illinois that included a series of drawings for identifying insects; the 
pages included a copyright statement.  The site in turn credited the 
drawings to an unnamed project that was carried on with WPA sponsorship. 
 That means the project and the drawings date to the 1930's - obviously 
after 1923.  Then I ask myself were WPA projects covered by policies for 
U.S. government publications?.  If not, who really did make the 
drawings?  WPA projects were Roosevelt's make work projects for escaping 
the depression, so that the participants were likely not thinking about 
copyright.  If the participants did have the copyright, did they renew 
them after 28 years?  How were the rights transferred to the U of I? 
 The questions keep coming, and trying to answer each can be a major 
project in itself.

We had another situation recently where a member wanted to upload 
Sudanese music representative of the different regions of that country. 
 The comment was quite rightly made that there are performance rights on 
top of composition rights.  Were the performances made in Sudan?  What 
is Sudan's copyright law?  No country is obliged to recognize 
intellectual property rights greater than those granted in a person's 
home country.

My approach to copyright is to first use common sense, make reasonable 
inquiries, and give the benefit of the doubt to including the material 
while recognizing the author's moral right to be given credit for his 
work no matter how old it is. The "better safe than sorry" approach that 
avoids all risk, is a recipe for accomplishing nothing.  Once due 
diligence has been applied, a policy of "It's easier to get forgiveness 
than permission" makes good sense.  Willingness of the ISP to take down 
offending material on receipt of proper notice will protect him legally. 
 A reputation for reasonable (rather than absolute) diligence should 
satisfy our users about the copyright safety of the material.  

Checking a box to say that one has the right to upload an image can only 
be done to the best of one's knowledge.  I suspect, in the particular 
case of Jennifer, that she was incautious and probably naïve to the ways 
of copyright.  That likely describes many newbies, especially young ones.

Eclecticology