Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
Two points are worth noting here. First of all, in case it's not clear,
the doctrine of laches can only apply if the plaintiff knows about the
infringement and fails to complain. If, as is very likely, a copyright
holder did not know about infringing material on Wikipedia, then laches
would not prevent a claim based on the continuing availability of the
material within the statute of limitations.
Second of all, if the Scientology case Ec alludes to is the New Era
Publications v. Henry Holt case that I've read, I should mention that
laches was only applied to deny an injunction against publication. It
did not prevent a remedy for monetary damages.
So the notion he suggests, that anything that's been on Wikipedia for at
least three years is safe to keep forevermore, probably should not be
used as a "rule of thumb" for copyright problems.
--Michael Snow