On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 7/21/06, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)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