Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/6/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 6 Dec 2005, at 13:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
I think this is a clear case of fair use. It serves a public purpose. There is a problem and we all need to hear about it.
fair use says nothing about public purpose. Now a few excerpts would be ok, but not the whole thing. You can hear about it from CNN.
Actually, a number of copyright law commentators have suggested that "public purpose" may be a legitimate restriction on exclusive rights, as a form of "fair use". The claim was raised inartfully in RTC v. Henson, but I don't believe the court ever ruled on the merits of that claim (mainly because Henson is a freaking idiot).
The other factor is that the material is personal to Wikipedia. This would give us arguments for using it that would not be available to others. CNN would only have a legitimate claim on Kyra Phillips part of the conversation since she is their employee. Jimbo can still release his part of the conversation under GFDL. For that matter, so can Seigenthaler. I don't think that CNN would want this kind of fight.
Ec