Case law has consistently held that an index of a work may be independently subject to copyright. We are certainly not using an insubstantial portion of their index.
I've discussed this here and other places before, but I do not believe we have a defensible fair use claim in this case. Since I have always been on the losing side of those arguments, I am just surprised something changed.
-DF
And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here before, that it would easily fall under the "fair use" clause. We are using an insubstantial part of their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own internal purposes (it is in the Wikipedia namespace, is it not?); we are non-profit; we are not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them >
in any way; we are not even looking at the content > itself, just bibliographic information.
FF
First, some statistics: we currently have a list of 13,000 articles, out of 100,000 articles which Britannica has. The list began in February 2005 with 28,360 articles.
A solution for this problem would be hosting the list outside the Wikimedia servers and the US, as in some countries (Sweden, for example), publishing the list in itself would be fair use and not be punishable under copyright infrigement because it does not create any loss of profit to Britannica, since nobody buys an encyclopedia only for the index.
Sunday, August 28, 2005, 8:06:01 PM, you wrote:
D> Case law has consistently held that an index of a work D> may be independently subject to copyright. We are D> certainly not using an insubstantial portion of their D> index.
D> I've discussed this here and other places before, but D> I do not believe we have a defensible fair use claim D> in this case. Since I have always been on the losing D> side of those arguments, I am just surprised something D> changed.
D> -DF
And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here before, that it would easily fall under the "fair use" clause. We are using an insubstantial part of their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own internal purposes (it is in the Wikipedia namespace, is it not?); we are non-profit; we are not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them >
D> in any way; we are not even looking at the content > D> itself, just bibliographic information.
FF
Where did the initial list come from? Does anyone have a copy of it?
Publishing this outside of Wikipedia would be significantly harder, because the list of red/blue links would have to be kept up to date, but it is a potential solution. Another, which is arguably even more useful, is to pick a certain subset of the list (say 50 entries) to work on at any time.
But first we need a copy of the list, preferably the full 100,000 article one.
On 8/28/05, Bogdan Giusca (discutii) disclist@dapyx-soft.com wrote:
First, some statistics: we currently have a list of 13,000 articles, out of 100,000 articles which Britannica has. The list began in February 2005 with 28,360 articles.
A solution for this problem would be hosting the list outside the Wikimedia servers and the US, as in some countries (Sweden, for example), publishing the list in itself would be fair use and not be punishable under copyright infrigement because it does not create any loss of profit to Britannica, since nobody buys an encyclopedia only for the index.
Sunday, August 28, 2005, 8:06:01 PM, you wrote:
D> Case law has consistently held that an index of a work D> may be independently subject to copyright. We are D> certainly not using an insubstantial portion of their D> index.
D> I've discussed this here and other places before, but D> I do not believe we have a defensible fair use claim D> in this case. Since I have always been on the losing D> side of those arguments, I am just surprised something D> changed.
D> -DF
And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here before, that it would easily fall under the "fair use" clause. We are using an insubstantial part of their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own internal purposes (it is in the Wikipedia namespace, is it not?); we are non-profit; we are not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them >
D> in any way; we are not even looking at the content > D> itself, just bibliographic information.
FF
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sounds like gaming the system to me though :/
On 8/28/05, Bogdan Giusca (discutii) disclist@dapyx-soft.com wrote:
First, some statistics: we currently have a list of 13,000 articles, out of 100,000 articles which Britannica has. The list began in February 2005 with 28,360 articles.
A solution for this problem would be hosting the list outside the Wikimedia servers and the US, as in some countries (Sweden, for example), publishing the list in itself would be fair use and not be punishable under copyright infrigement because it does not create any loss of profit to Britannica, since nobody buys an encyclopedia only for the index.
Sunday, August 28, 2005, 8:06:01 PM, you wrote:
D> Case law has consistently held that an index of a work D> may be independently subject to copyright. We are D> certainly not using an insubstantial portion of their D> index.
D> I've discussed this here and other places before, but D> I do not believe we have a defensible fair use claim D> in this case. Since I have always been on the losing D> side of those arguments, I am just surprised something D> changed.
D> -DF
And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here before, that it would easily fall under the "fair use" clause. We are using an insubstantial part of their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own internal purposes (it is in the Wikipedia namespace, is it not?); we are non-profit; we are not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them >
D> in any way; we are not even looking at the content > D> itself, just bibliographic information.
FF
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It would be easy to write a PHP script which would check the site once a day or something like that and update the red/blue links. I wrote about half of one last time before discarding it as unnecessary since people seemed to stop worrying about it.
FF
On 8/28/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Where did the initial list come from? Does anyone have a copy of it?
Publishing this outside of Wikipedia would be significantly harder, because the list of red/blue links would have to be kept up to date, but it is a potential solution. Another, which is arguably even more useful, is to pick a certain subset of the list (say 50 entries) to work on at any time.
But first we need a copy of the list, preferably the full 100,000 article one.
On 8/28/05, Bogdan Giusca (discutii) disclist@dapyx-soft.com wrote:
First, some statistics: we currently have a list of 13,000 articles, out of 100,000 articles which Britannica has. The list began in February 2005 with 28,360 articles.
A solution for this problem would be hosting the list outside the Wikimedia servers and the US, as in some countries (Sweden, for example), publishing the list in itself would be fair use and not be punishable under copyright infrigement because it does not create any loss of profit to Britannica, since nobody buys an encyclopedia only for the index.
Sunday, August 28, 2005, 8:06:01 PM, you wrote:
D> Case law has consistently held that an index of a work D> may be independently subject to copyright. We are D> certainly not using an insubstantial portion of their D> index.
D> I've discussed this here and other places before, but D> I do not believe we have a defensible fair use claim D> in this case. Since I have always been on the losing D> side of those arguments, I am just surprised something D> changed.
D> -DF
And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here before, that it would easily fall under the "fair use" clause. We are using an insubstantial part of their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own internal purposes (it is in the Wikipedia namespace, is it not?); we are non-profit; we are not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them >
D> in any way; we are not even looking at the content > D> itself, just bibliographic information.
FF
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l