Mark Wagner wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/21/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
If you have a suggestion that doesn't involve large numbers of nonexistent volunteers working all hours to keep WP out of legal peril, feel free to enlighten us.
Here's one: when people send in a DMCA takedown notice, remove the material, notify the uploader that her materials have been removed (via their talk page and email if the address is known), and provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. If the uploader provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. However, only restore the image if there is also a consensus that the image is "free enough" within the project's guidelines.
Or in other words, stick our heads in the ground and pray that everyone opens fire with a takedown notice rather than a lawsuit. Even if the law protects Wikipedia from liability when a user infringes copyright, that still needs to be proven in front of a judge, and even an immediate dismissal requires thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees.
Defeatism? or copyright paranoia? Try being realistic. It's also going to cost the plaintiff to mount the suit, and he has the burden to prove that there was an infringement. It will probably cost the plaintiff more to prosecute the suit than for any of us to defend; a sane lawyer will probably try to talk him out of it unless there really is a lot involved. There are still nutcases who will go ahead, but their knoledge of copyright law is matched by their knowledge of legal procedure. I am not afraid of lawsuits.
Ec