Ray Saintonge wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
However, republishing in another medium, such as publishing a print edition of Wikipedia, probably would easily restart the limitation period.
That's debateable. With GFDL the history of the material should be traceable. A fairly recent case involving laches went against the Church of Scientology because they had delayed the enforcement of their rights. This was despite the fact that the limitation period had not yet expired when they started their action.
Two points are worth noting here. First of all, in case it's not clear, the doctrine of laches can only apply if the plaintiff knows about the infringement and fails to complain. If, as is very likely, a copyright holder did not know about infringing material on Wikipedia, then laches would not prevent a claim based on the continuing availability of the material within the statute of limitations.
Second of all, if the Scientology case Ec alludes to is the New Era Publications v. Henry Holt case that I've read, I should mention that laches was only applied to deny an injunction against publication. It did not prevent a remedy for monetary damages.
So the notion he suggests, that anything that's been on Wikipedia for at least three years is safe to keep forevermore, probably should not be used as a "rule of thumb" for copyright problems.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
However, republishing in another medium, such as publishing a print edition of Wikipedia, probably would easily restart the limitation period.
That's debateable. With GFDL the history of the material should be traceable. A fairly recent case involving laches went against the Church of Scientology because they had delayed the enforcement of their rights. This was despite the fact that the limitation period had not yet expired when they started their action.
Two points are worth noting here. First of all, in case it's not clear, the doctrine of laches can only apply if the plaintiff knows about the infringement and fails to complain. If, as is very likely, a copyright holder did not know about infringing material on Wikipedia, then laches would not prevent a claim based on the continuing availability of the material within the statute of limitations.
Second of all, if the Scientology case Ec alludes to is the New Era Publications v. Henry Holt case that I've read, I should mention that laches was only applied to deny an injunction against publication. It did not prevent a remedy for monetary damages.
So the notion he suggests, that anything that's been on Wikipedia for at least three years is safe to keep forevermore, probably should not be used as a "rule of thumb" for copyright problems.
I agree that laches in that case was applied to prevent injunctive relief, and that a lot has happened since 1989: notably the spread of the on-line world. Invoking laches before the expiry of the limitation period would not be my choice of a first line of defence. One thing that is certainly not clear is when the limitation clock starts running. In the world of the printed book continuously renewed availability is not an option; time must elapse between one edition and the next. Laches can probably be invoked to prevent the extension of the limitation period beyond three years as long as an unbroken thread can be traced from the original allegedly infringing act to the act that is used as a basis for action. The limitation period can probably be viewed as the time within which the person should have known about the infringement.
The copyright owner should have a duty of due dilligence which duty might be satisfied simply enough by periodic Google searches using key phrases in his text. Something like keeping dated records of negative search results might be sufficient to establish lack of knowledge. If there were positive results, and he did nothing about any of them (including ones unrelated to Wikipedia, and our downstream users who have failed to trace their source as required by the GFDL) then invoking laches after the initial three year period would be a possibility. "Doing something" may be as simple as sending an informal request to have the material removed from the offending website.
Ec
How should Wikipedia deal with the publication ban regarding the Gomery Inquiry in Canada?
Legally, Wikipedia as publisher is beyond the scope of the Canadian Criminal Code, because its servers are not in Canada. However, each editor is legally responsible for what they write, and if they are in Canada could in principle be sued or prosecuted as author of the material, and perhaps as publisher too, as this is a wiki. (Note: This is not legal advice.)
However, if the publication ban is being adhered to by others, it may mean that there is no published information that Wikipedia could refer to anyway, bearing in mind the NOR policy.
Sarah
On Apr 6, 2005 8:46 PM, AndyL andyl2004@sympatico.ca wrote:
How should Wikipedia deal with the publication ban regarding the Gomery Inquiry in Canada?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is an American website www.captainsquartersblog.com which has been publishing reports from the inquiry which have been described in various Canadian media as "fairly accurate".
on 4/6/05 11:12 PM, slimvirgin@gmail.com at slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Legally, Wikipedia as publisher is beyond the scope of the Canadian Criminal Code, because its servers are not in Canada. However, each editor is legally responsible for what they write, and if they are in Canada could in principle be sued or prosecuted as author of the material, and perhaps as publisher too, as this is a wiki. (Note: This is not legal advice.)
However, if the publication ban is being adhered to by others, it may mean that there is no published information that Wikipedia could refer to anyway, bearing in mind the NOR policy.
Sarah
On Apr 6, 2005 8:46 PM, AndyL andyl2004@sympatico.ca wrote:
How should Wikipedia deal with the publication ban regarding the Gomery Inquiry in Canada?
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
Interesting. It's difficult to use an anonymous person posting to a blog as a source, though. The judge is due to decide tomorrow whether to lift the ban, so we don't have long to wait. It's an interesting question as to whether a Canadian Wikipedian could simply plead ignorance of the bans and repeat the blogger's information. Journalists aren't allowed to plead ignorance, even in cases where the ban has itself been part of a sealed record and therefore hard to obtain information about, journalists are nevertheless expected to make inquiries to find out whether there's a ban, and can be prosecuted for breaching it even when they say they didn't know about it.
In reality, they usually do know because they know media law and can predict which types of cases are likely to attract which types of bans. But whether a court would extend the ignorance-is-no-defense principle to a Wikipedia editor, who may not be so familar with media law and who doesn't have such easy access to court records, would make an interesting test case. If you're volunteering, Andy ... I've heard that Canadian jails are very civilized. ;-)
Sarah
On Apr 6, 2005 9:25 PM, AndyL andyl2004@sympatico.ca wrote:
There is an American website www.captainsquartersblog.com which has been publishing reports from the inquiry which have been described in various Canadian media as "fairly accurate".
on 4/6/05 11:12 PM, slimvirgin@gmail.com at slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Legally, Wikipedia as publisher is beyond the scope of the Canadian Criminal Code, because its servers are not in Canada. However, each editor is legally responsible for what they write, and if they are in Canada could in principle be sued or prosecuted as author of the material, and perhaps as publisher too, as this is a wiki. (Note: This is not legal advice.)
However, if the publication ban is being adhered to by others, it may mean that there is no published information that Wikipedia could refer to anyway, bearing in mind the NOR policy.
Sarah
On Apr 6, 2005 8:46 PM, AndyL andyl2004@sympatico.ca wrote:
How should Wikipedia deal with the publication ban regarding the Gomery Inquiry in Canada?
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l