Ian Woollard wrote:
On 07/02/2010, Ray Saintonge wrote:
In examining this one needs to distinguish between Wikipedia policy and copyright law. Wikipedia can establish its own policies, which largely, but not exclusively, tend to be more stringent than copyright law. In that it can be authoritative; it chooses what level of risk to accept.
My understanding is that the Wikipedia doesn't really have any risk under the law.
Provided the strictures of the DMCA are followed, any uploaded copyrighted material simply has to be removed promptly if they receive a copyright violation notice. If the strictures of the DMCA aren't followed then the Wikipedia/media could be in big trouble.
True enough, and none of us is supporting flagrantly infringing acts. But I don't think that Wikipedia gets many such take down orders. A most important requirement of those orders is that the claimant show that he has some legal interest in the material. If the claims could be made by third-party do-gooders a lot of people would be wasting a lot of time spinning their wheels.
Perhaps the risk is that such a notice might be received. We often seem to be guided by a pervasive naïveté about such things; it's never so simple as drawing a go-to-jail card in a Monopoly game. There are numerous things that must happen before some acts can be penalized, and always opportunities to jump away before it all gets out of hand.
Ec