Tony Sidaway wrote: A third party should have something more than mere suspicion or doubt for making his claim. "Assume good faith" implies that we believe that the contributor is telling the truth when he says that he took the picture himself. The reality of third party claims is that most of the time they come from do-gooders who don't have a clue about what they are saying. It is with good reason that one of the conditions in issuing a takedown order is that the person issuing the order must have some relationship to the copyright work before he can ask for it to be taken down. Another thing to keep in mind is the three-year limitation for taking action on a copyright violation. If something has been on the site for at least three years it is probably safe to keep. The argument that continuing availability may result in new limitation periods can probably be countered by invoking the doctrine of laches. Ec

since we are on the copyright topic, what is currently done with articles where there is a certainty of copyright but are not new, or even worse, have been edited since then ? Are they reverted ? Or, is the cp content just removed ? Or is it commonly practiced to remove in the history of the article the place where it is under copyright to avoid cp to be in history ? Anthere Tony Sidaway a écrit: