From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com
Can you explain more about the "famous 108 notice"?
I read this article, but found it only partially helpful: http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/notice.html
And this: http://www.mlc.lib.mi.us/services/copyill.php
And finally, a marked-up copy of the law itself: http://www.groton.k12.ct.us/mts/eg13a.htm
--Jimbo
The 108 notice is the notice frequenters to physical paper libraries often encounter. Usually the notice is affixed to the photocopy machines. At the NYPL (New York Public Libary) the notice has actually appeared on each photocopy page, marginally on the copy and the NYPL has stopped allowing individuals to make copies, they must order the copies from the Copyright service in the Main Library on 42nd Street. The glass platen has the photocopy notice pasted to it, so all copies have the notice on it. You also have to sign a form stating that you are aware of the copyright law. Most libraries still allow self service photocopying and they just put a notice near the photocopy machine. I often see them in law libraries:
"NOTICE: Photocopys may be protected by Copyright Title 17 United States Code."
This section was advocated by library association lobbyists who were worried that libraries might be held responsible for copyright violations that occurred on their premises due to the proliferation of photocopy machines. It is seen as a way to give notice to the person that their use of copying devices provided by the library or archive, may result in potential copyright infringement.
The original requirement was either to provide a copy of the notice from the work (i.e. copy the copyright notice page when any photocopies were made by library staff or to affix a notice) the law was interpreted different ways and there was not one way in which it was applied.
THE DMCA clarifed the confusion about the notice that was required and the legal opinion your cited below Jimmy deals with the minimal notice requirements, i.e. "a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright" if there is no notice on the work itself (the copy is only of a page out of a book is a good example and it seems this might apply to the kind of potential infringement that occur when people paste stuff from copyrighted web sites onto Wikipedia that later end up in the history pages.
This article gives a pretty good background and explanation of the provision: http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/super_copying.htm. It is pretty clear to me, but then again IAAL!
Also 108(f) might be a good reason to place a notice on all of Wikipedia as it will put users on notice that it is there responsiblity to check copyright (actually this is equivalent to a copyright warranty disclaimer, though specifically mentioning sec. 108 might give Wikipedia some added protection, it is another argument to use if infringement is alleged).
Alex756