I am not convinced. *If* we need to protect ourselves against such an issue (copyrighted content being in an old revision), then such a disclaimer should be on all projects. This is not the case. So, what is the argument for saying we should protect us in one project but not in others ?

And still, I find it strangely expressed, as someone not aware of wikipedia editing process will read that the first reason we jump from one revision to the next is because copyright content could be in it. Which is not accurate.

I would gladly propose a rephrasing (though not sure everyone would like my english :-)), but I currently do not see why one project needs such a disclaimer and not others.

So, I am still confused.

When was this set up and by who ?

Anthere

Stephen Bain a écrit:

On 7/13/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:

...

My point is - what has that bit of code got do with Wikipedia? Is that the bit "fair use" comes from?

Well, IANAL, just an Australian law student, but as far as I can tell, 17 USC 108 is linked because it is the part of US copyright law which allows libraries or archives to make legitimate copies of a copyrighted work.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000108----000-...

I presume that this link is included to cover the possibility of a copyright holder coming across an old revision of an article which includes their copyrighted content. Basically it's saying "sorry, this might have accidentally included your copyrighted work, but this is an old revision, we have probably removed the content from the current version, and just in case you try to sue, we believe we're covered by this section." It's a sort of pre-emptive defence.

I'm not sure it's ever been tested whether WP would classify as a "library", but WP would hopefully fall under 17 USC 108 (a) (1) - not intending a commercial benefit, (a) (2) - WP is open to the public, and (a) (3) the notice says "this work may be protected by copyright."

"Fair use" is a separate sort of pre-emptive copyright defence which can be used by anyone (not just libraries and archives), which essentially says "I know this work is copyright, but I believe that I am reproducing this in a fair way."

Of course, IANAL, and I may be completely wrong, but that's how I read it.

-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com