On 5/25/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
- To impress a woman, George passes himself off as:
a) a gynecologist; b) a geologist; c) a marine biologist; d) a meteorologist
- What candy does Kramer snack on while observing a surgical procedure
from an operating-room balcony?
- Who said, "I don't go for those nonrefundable deals . . . I can't commit
to a woman . . . I'm not committing to an airline."? a) Jerry; b) George; c) Kramer I'd call those plot details, though I suppose you could get into a semantical argument with me over whether or not Seinfeld has a "plot" in the first place (the defendants in the case actually argue this as part of their defense).
Some of these definitely go beyond simple plot into intricate detail of the copyrighted work, especially when it comes to exact wording of the episodes' dialog.
I suspect any disagreement between us here is more to do with my defining 'plot' as a more limited and more meta-level aspect of the work than you do.
While like every legal question, you can only really answer it by
going to court and seeing who wins, I suspect some things can be determined. One would be that a trivia game is subject to different fair use judgment than an encyclopedia.
Yes, of course, and a for-profit encyclopedia like Britannica is subject to different fair use judgment than an online non-profit one like Wikipedia.
Indeed. However, a reference work is also different from a trivia game. I suspect that the game aspect was a good deal of what tripped up this defendant. Also damaging their case would be the extent of the use and the proportion it made of the ultimate work. A print encyclopedia covers many topics, and thus the fair use it makes of one copyrighted work is a small portion of the overall work; the educational intent is also a large aspect.
I'd personally say that any plot summary that would be detailed enough
to cause fair use issues for a commercial print encyclopedia is too detailed for Wikipedia. It's supposed to be a very brief summary, not a retelling of the story in thirty paragraphs. In checking out spoiler warnings, I've found some obsessively over-large "summaries" out there ...
I'm not saying it all goes over the line, but I think Brittanica would have a tough time justifying some of the plot details of Wikipedia's Simpsons coverage, for instance.
I think we have trouble too - not necessarily legally, but in terms of appropriateness and in terms of a treatment too deep and too wordy to be achieving what we set out to achieve.
-Matt