Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind is the three-year limitation for taking action on a copyright violation. If something has been on the site for at least three years it is probably safe to keep. The argument that continuing availability may result in new limitation periods can probably be countered by invoking the doctrine of laches.
However, republishing in another medium, such as publishing a print edition of Wikipedia, probably would easily restart the limitation period.
That's debateable. With GFDL the history of the material should be traceable. A fairly recent case involving laches went against the Church of Scientology because they had delayed the enforcement of their rights. This was despite the fact that the limitation period had not yet expired when they started their action. It then becomes a question of our dilligence in tracking the history of the article versus the copyright owner's dilligence in protecting his copyright. A downstream user of the Wikipedia material should have both the benefits and responsibilities of the GFDL. If he doesn't give the proper credits he is violating the GFDL, and can't rely on the accumulated history in his defence.
Ec