On 8/5/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In a claim of fair use, one needs to consider the four factors. Let's analyse the use of such lists in terms of those factors. 1. Purpose and Character. It is a non-profit usage that stimulates creativity. 2. Nature of the copied work. A factual list of article titles, without regard to how those titles are expressed, in a standard manner. Indeed, our given-name-first way of listing personal names is "more original" than the usual way of listing names. 3. Substantiality. A mere list of titles is certainly minor compared to the whole articles, and our list will be diminishing in size. 4. Market effect. May marginaly have a positive market effect since it's a list of things we DON'T have. A person wanting the information would need to look it up in the source work.
Each of these four factors do not have to be considered separately to the exclusion of the others,IIRC, the courts consider them both separately and in combination.
Addressing #1 & #4 together: Our use is non-profit usage that stimulates creativity, certainly, which in turn directly results in the reduction of the market values of EB and Encarta. How can that possibly be fair use? I don't think it can.
I see several other potential problems that damage Wikipedia's claim to fair use. I think we're right to take them down at this time.