I (smoddy -- this is my second email address) sent an email to User:Crosstar about fair use on a logo at [[Nationalist Movement]] and [[Crosstar]]. I received this email back in response (my original email is at the bottom).
I am forwarding the email here as I am not subscribed to the legal mailing list.
Are there any suggestions as to the course to take?
Sam/smoddy
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: crosstar nationalist@nationalist.org Date: Aug 3, 2005 4:06 AM Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail -- fair use To: Smoddy sam.korn@gmail.com
Dear Mr. Smoddy:
Your assessment is incorrect and far from "clear."
"Fair Use" is considered on a case-by-case basis and, even after expensive and protracted litigation, outcomes may vary. Suffice it to say, we cannot render legal-advice to you, which must come from your own, independent legal-counsel. I can tell you that in approximately thirty-seven cases involving infringement of our trademarks and violation of our copyrights, however, we have won every one.
The US Copyright Office advises that:
"The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
The courts tend to lean toward protecting intellectual-property rights, as well they should, insofar such rights are protected by the United States Constitution.
Anyone who wishes his own intellectual-property rights to be respected (and that should include all of us) should respect such rights of others. Penalties for violation are severe and increased if repeated. In the Hale case, the fine was $200,000.00, plus $450,000.00 attorney fees, alone. Punitive damages may also be assessed, where conduct is wilfull, reckless or wanton, if, for instance, the offender persists, after having been placed on notice.
In this instance, the copyright/trademark owner has not given permission for its images to be used and will vigorously defend its rights in court, if need be.
The Copyright Office further explains that:
"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided...." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
It is the choice of the copyright/trademark owner whether or not to license use of its intellectual-property and, insofar as the owner does not approve of your project and wishes to avoid any misrepresentation of itself or any implied endorsement of your project, as well as to prevent any confusion in the mind of the public, permission is denied.
There are numerous other objections, but the foregoing should suffice for purposes of your question. Thank you for your kind consideration and cooperation.
Richard Barrett Attorney The Nationalist Movement
At 12:11 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:
May I ask that you explain why we are not allowed to display this image? Under US law, it is allowed for reference materials (and other such documents) to be shown for informational reasons about the topic. This is clearly true in this case.
I am sending you an email in the hope that you will reply.
Cheers, and best wishes
Sam/smoddy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Sam Korn wrote:
I (smoddy -- this is my second email address) sent an email to User:Crosstar about fair use on a logo at [[Nationalist Movement]] and [[Crosstar]]. I received this email back in response (my original email is at the bottom).
I am forwarding the email here as I am not subscribed to the legal mailing list.
Are there any suggestions as to the course to take?
Yes, ignore them. If they feel like suing us, they will be awarded a percentage of our profits from use of the material.
Any mirrors using "fair use" material do so at their own risk, and stand to lose a whole lot more (financially) than Wikipedia does.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Well, Jimbo, if you want to stand up for fair use it appears that now's your chance. :)
There seem to be around 6000 images that link to the {{logo}} template.
Regards, Haukur
I (smoddy -- this is my second email address) sent an email to User:Crosstar about fair use on a logo at [[Nationalist Movement]] and [[Crosstar]]. I received this email back in response (my original email is at the bottom).
I am forwarding the email here as I am not subscribed to the legal mailing list.
Are there any suggestions as to the course to take?
Sam/smoddy
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: crosstar nationalist@nationalist.org Date: Aug 3, 2005 4:06 AM Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail -- fair use To: Smoddy sam.korn@gmail.com
Dear Mr. Smoddy:
Your assessment is incorrect and far from "clear."
"Fair Use" is considered on a case-by-case basis and, even after expensive and protracted litigation, outcomes may vary. Suffice it to say, we cannot render legal-advice to you, which must come from your own, independent legal-counsel. I can tell you that in approximately thirty-seven cases involving infringement of our trademarks and violation of our copyrights, however, we have won every one.
The US Copyright Office advises that:
"The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
The courts tend to lean toward protecting intellectual-property rights, as well they should, insofar such rights are protected by the United States Constitution.
Anyone who wishes his own intellectual-property rights to be respected (and that should include all of us) should respect such rights of others. Penalties for violation are severe and increased if repeated. In the Hale case, the fine was $200,000.00, plus $450,000.00 attorney fees, alone. Punitive damages may also be assessed, where conduct is wilfull, reckless or wanton, if, for instance, the offender persists, after having been placed on notice.
In this instance, the copyright/trademark owner has not given permission for its images to be used and will vigorously defend its rights in court, if need be.
The Copyright Office further explains that:
"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided...." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
It is the choice of the copyright/trademark owner whether or not to license use of its intellectual-property and, insofar as the owner does not approve of your project and wishes to avoid any misrepresentation of itself or any implied endorsement of your project, as well as to prevent any confusion in the mind of the public, permission is denied.
There are numerous other objections, but the foregoing should suffice for purposes of your question. Thank you for your kind consideration and cooperation.
Richard Barrett Attorney The Nationalist Movement
At 12:11 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:
May I ask that you explain why we are not allowed to display this image? Under US law, it is allowed for reference materials (and other such documents) to be shown for informational reasons about the topic. This is clearly true in this case.
I am sending you an email in the hope that you will reply.
Cheers, and best wishes
Sam/smoddy
-- Try http://en.wikipedia.org - Wikipedia - the free encyclopaedia! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
His response is spot-on as far as I can tell, but it is important to see what he is saying. In a charitable interpretation, he is responding correctly to Smoddy's argument that promotional materials and logos are de facto "fair use" under U.S. copyright law. This is not true and our blanket statement template should be modified (as should all of them) to explicitly justify under which conditions it can be asserted as "fair use" -- not every use would necessarily be "fair". "Fair use" does not apply in a blanket way and should be spoken of in such a way -- Smoddy's language was imprecise and did not reflect a thorough understanding of the law (probably not his fault -- most of the "fair use" templates are VERY misleading!).
A proper response would be, "We think our use of this falls under the 'fair use' clause because 1. the ownership of the logo is clearly attributed and the resolution of the file provided is low, 2. we are using it for an educational purpose on a non-profit encyclopedia, and it enhances this effort significantly, 3. no uncopyrighted alternative exists. We believe that a judge would agree with us that such usage is 'fair' were it to be litigated."
Our Nationalist friend has not given us any reasons for why he would think the above claims would *not* qualify as fair, so it is hard to know why he thinks that.
The templates are misleading and should be changed -- they make "fair use" look like a free ticket, and they are from the standpoint of what the *content* itself is rather than its *use* (i.e., they say things like "posters are considered fair use" -- completely the wrong way to think about it). I've been working on some proposals along these lines which I'll link to on here at some point.
FF
On 8/3/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Well, Jimbo, if you want to stand up for fair use it appears that now's your chance. :)
There seem to be around 6000 images that link to the {{logo}} template.
Regards, Haukur
I (smoddy -- this is my second email address) sent an email to User:Crosstar about fair use on a logo at [[Nationalist Movement]] and [[Crosstar]]. I received this email back in response (my original email is at the bottom).
I am forwarding the email here as I am not subscribed to the legal mailing list.
Are there any suggestions as to the course to take?
Sam/smoddy
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: crosstar nationalist@nationalist.org Date: Aug 3, 2005 4:06 AM Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail -- fair use To: Smoddy sam.korn@gmail.com
Dear Mr. Smoddy:
Your assessment is incorrect and far from "clear."
"Fair Use" is considered on a case-by-case basis and, even after expensive and protracted litigation, outcomes may vary. Suffice it to say, we cannot render legal-advice to you, which must come from your own, independent legal-counsel. I can tell you that in approximately thirty-seven cases involving infringement of our trademarks and violation of our copyrights, however, we have won every one.
The US Copyright Office advises that:
"The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
The courts tend to lean toward protecting intellectual-property rights, as well they should, insofar such rights are protected by the United States Constitution.
Anyone who wishes his own intellectual-property rights to be respected (and that should include all of us) should respect such rights of others. Penalties for violation are severe and increased if repeated. In the Hale case, the fine was $200,000.00, plus $450,000.00 attorney fees, alone. Punitive damages may also be assessed, where conduct is wilfull, reckless or wanton, if, for instance, the offender persists, after having been placed on notice.
In this instance, the copyright/trademark owner has not given permission for its images to be used and will vigorously defend its rights in court, if need be.
The Copyright Office further explains that:
"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided...." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
It is the choice of the copyright/trademark owner whether or not to license use of its intellectual-property and, insofar as the owner does not approve of your project and wishes to avoid any misrepresentation of itself or any implied endorsement of your project, as well as to prevent any confusion in the mind of the public, permission is denied.
There are numerous other objections, but the foregoing should suffice for purposes of your question. Thank you for your kind consideration and cooperation.
Richard Barrett Attorney The Nationalist Movement
At 12:11 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:
May I ask that you explain why we are not allowed to display this image? Under US law, it is allowed for reference materials (and other such documents) to be shown for informational reasons about the topic. This is clearly true in this case.
I am sending you an email in the hope that you will reply.
Cheers, and best wishes
Sam/smoddy
-- Try http://en.wikipedia.org - Wikipedia - the free encyclopaedia! _______________________________________________ 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
I think it would be slightly confusing having more then one template for fair use. It would probably be better to have a blank space in the template where you can enter your claims for fair use.
On 8/3/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
His response is spot-on as far as I can tell, but it is important to see what he is saying. In a charitable interpretation, he is responding correctly to Smoddy's argument that promotional materials and logos are de facto "fair use" under U.S. copyright law. This is not true and our blanket statement template should be modified (as should all of them) to explicitly justify under which conditions it can be asserted as "fair use" -- not every use would necessarily be "fair". "Fair use" does not apply in a blanket way and should be spoken of in such a way -- Smoddy's language was imprecise and did not reflect a thorough understanding of the law (probably not his fault -- most of the "fair use" templates are VERY misleading!).
A proper response would be, "We think our use of this falls under the 'fair use' clause because 1. the ownership of the logo is clearly attributed and the resolution of the file provided is low, 2. we are using it for an educational purpose on a non-profit encyclopedia, and it enhances this effort significantly, 3. no uncopyrighted alternative exists. We believe that a judge would agree with us that such usage is 'fair' were it to be litigated."
Our Nationalist friend has not given us any reasons for why he would think the above claims would *not* qualify as fair, so it is hard to know why he thinks that.
The templates are misleading and should be changed -- they make "fair use" look like a free ticket, and they are from the standpoint of what the *content* itself is rather than its *use* (i.e., they say things like "posters are considered fair use" -- completely the wrong way to think about it). I've been working on some proposals along these lines which I'll link to on here at some point.
FF
On 8/3/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Well, Jimbo, if you want to stand up for fair use it appears that now's your chance. :)
There seem to be around 6000 images that link to the {{logo}} template.
Regards, Haukur
I (smoddy -- this is my second email address) sent an email to User:Crosstar about fair use on a logo at [[Nationalist Movement]] and [[Crosstar]]. I received this email back in response (my original email is at the bottom).
I am forwarding the email here as I am not subscribed to the legal mailing list.
Are there any suggestions as to the course to take?
Sam/smoddy
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: crosstar nationalist@nationalist.org Date: Aug 3, 2005 4:06 AM Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail -- fair use To: Smoddy sam.korn@gmail.com
Dear Mr. Smoddy:
Your assessment is incorrect and far from "clear."
"Fair Use" is considered on a case-by-case basis and, even after expensive and protracted litigation, outcomes may vary. Suffice it to say, we cannot render legal-advice to you, which must come from your own, independent legal-counsel. I can tell you that in approximately thirty-seven cases involving infringement of our trademarks and violation of our copyrights, however, we have won every one.
The US Copyright Office advises that:
"The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
The courts tend to lean toward protecting intellectual-property rights, as well they should, insofar such rights are protected by the United States Constitution.
Anyone who wishes his own intellectual-property rights to be respected (and that should include all of us) should respect such rights of others. Penalties for violation are severe and increased if repeated. In the Hale case, the fine was $200,000.00, plus $450,000.00 attorney fees, alone. Punitive damages may also be assessed, where conduct is wilfull, reckless or wanton, if, for instance, the offender persists, after having been placed on notice.
In this instance, the copyright/trademark owner has not given permission for its images to be used and will vigorously defend its rights in court, if need be.
The Copyright Office further explains that:
"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided...." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
It is the choice of the copyright/trademark owner whether or not to license use of its intellectual-property and, insofar as the owner does not approve of your project and wishes to avoid any misrepresentation of itself or any implied endorsement of your project, as well as to prevent any confusion in the mind of the public, permission is denied.
There are numerous other objections, but the foregoing should suffice for purposes of your question. Thank you for your kind consideration and cooperation.
Richard Barrett Attorney The Nationalist Movement
At 12:11 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:
May I ask that you explain why we are not allowed to display this image? Under US law, it is allowed for reference materials (and other such documents) to be shown for informational reasons about the topic. This is clearly true in this case.
I am sending you an email in the hope that you will reply.
Cheers, and best wishes
Sam/smoddy
-- Try http://en.wikipedia.org - Wikipedia - the free encyclopaedia! _______________________________________________ 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
Well, there are already many fair use templates for different purposes, and I think that is a good idea for certain blanket categories of use. I think a blank space is a bad idea -- most users do not know what kind of claims they should be making, do not care, and do not want to take the time to learn. I do not blame them for this in the slightest!
My proposal is to edit the templates so that they clearly state their proper use. For example, the following would be a fair use template for use on portraits of historical individuals:
{{ This is a copyrighted photographic portrait of a notable individual. It is believed that this qualifies under the fair use provision of United States copyright law (see copyrights), because the Wikipedia editor who has placed this copyright tag believes it to satisify the following criteria: 1. It is used for purely educational purposes and significantly enhances value of the encyclopedia article it is being used to illustrate and is not meant to defraud or otherwise harm the existing copyright holder. 2. Alternative photographs under a free license have not been located and seem unlikely to currently exist. 3. Its total pixel dimensions is far below any suitable print resolution. As such it is only provides a limited amount of reproducibility and in limited applications. 4. Its ultimate source and likely copyright holder is listed above if known, for those seeking to license the photograph for their own use. If it is not known, its immediate source is listed above, who may be possibly contacted for copyright information as well. 5. It is being used on the English edition of Wikipedia, which is sponsored by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, for the purpose of creating an encyclopedia and spreading general knowledge. If you are re-using Wikipedia content for another website (see our copyright policy), these fair use criteria may not apply.
Please note that the posting of copyrighted material that does not have the express permission of the copyright holder may be in violation of applicable law and of our policy. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily suspended from editing pages. }}
Now if I were a user and I placed that, I would hopefully read it over a bit to see if it qualified, but even if I didn't, any other user who looked at the tag could quickly and easily see if the image *didn't* meet one of the requirements. "Holy smokes, this user didn't include any information about the likely copyright holder!" and then flag it appropriately or notify the original user.
That is, *the template itself* would, in the process of setting out the "fair use" claims (which would alert any copyright holder specifically what our argument about fair use is), also define what sorts of things could be labeled with it. Does your image/use not fit the template? Then it probably isn't fair use! Simple as that.
I think they should all be changed along these lines. I think it would save a lot of time, be a lot "safer", and also make a lot more users unconsciously aware of the "fair use" requirements in an actionable way. It also makes the licensing information pretty clear, i.e. that future use of it could be pretty limited.
FF
On 8/3/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be slightly confusing having more then one template for fair use. It would probably be better to have a blank space in the template where you can enter your claims for fair use.
On 8/3/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
His response is spot-on as far as I can tell, but it is important to see what he is saying. In a charitable interpretation, he is responding correctly to Smoddy's argument that promotional materials and logos are de facto "fair use" under U.S. copyright law. This is not true and our blanket statement template should be modified (as should all of them) to explicitly justify under which conditions it can be asserted as "fair use" -- not every use would necessarily be "fair". "Fair use" does not apply in a blanket way and should be spoken of in such a way -- Smoddy's language was imprecise and did not reflect a thorough understanding of the law (probably not his fault -- most of the "fair use" templates are VERY misleading!).
A proper response would be, "We think our use of this falls under the 'fair use' clause because 1. the ownership of the logo is clearly attributed and the resolution of the file provided is low, 2. we are using it for an educational purpose on a non-profit encyclopedia, and it enhances this effort significantly, 3. no uncopyrighted alternative exists. We believe that a judge would agree with us that such usage is 'fair' were it to be litigated."
Our Nationalist friend has not given us any reasons for why he would think the above claims would *not* qualify as fair, so it is hard to know why he thinks that.
The templates are misleading and should be changed -- they make "fair use" look like a free ticket, and they are from the standpoint of what the *content* itself is rather than its *use* (i.e., they say things like "posters are considered fair use" -- completely the wrong way to think about it). I've been working on some proposals along these lines which I'll link to on here at some point.
FF
On 8/3/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Well, Jimbo, if you want to stand up for fair use it appears that now's your chance. :)
There seem to be around 6000 images that link to the {{logo}} template.
Regards, Haukur
I (smoddy -- this is my second email address) sent an email to User:Crosstar about fair use on a logo at [[Nationalist Movement]] and [[Crosstar]]. I received this email back in response (my original email is at the bottom).
I am forwarding the email here as I am not subscribed to the legal mailing list.
Are there any suggestions as to the course to take?
Sam/smoddy
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: crosstar nationalist@nationalist.org Date: Aug 3, 2005 4:06 AM Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail -- fair use To: Smoddy sam.korn@gmail.com
Dear Mr. Smoddy:
Your assessment is incorrect and far from "clear."
"Fair Use" is considered on a case-by-case basis and, even after expensive and protracted litigation, outcomes may vary. Suffice it to say, we cannot render legal-advice to you, which must come from your own, independent legal-counsel. I can tell you that in approximately thirty-seven cases involving infringement of our trademarks and violation of our copyrights, however, we have won every one.
The US Copyright Office advises that:
"The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
The courts tend to lean toward protecting intellectual-property rights, as well they should, insofar such rights are protected by the United States Constitution.
Anyone who wishes his own intellectual-property rights to be respected (and that should include all of us) should respect such rights of others. Penalties for violation are severe and increased if repeated. In the Hale case, the fine was $200,000.00, plus $450,000.00 attorney fees, alone. Punitive damages may also be assessed, where conduct is wilfull, reckless or wanton, if, for instance, the offender persists, after having been placed on notice.
In this instance, the copyright/trademark owner has not given permission for its images to be used and will vigorously defend its rights in court, if need be.
The Copyright Office further explains that:
"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided...." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
It is the choice of the copyright/trademark owner whether or not to license use of its intellectual-property and, insofar as the owner does not approve of your project and wishes to avoid any misrepresentation of itself or any implied endorsement of your project, as well as to prevent any confusion in the mind of the public, permission is denied.
There are numerous other objections, but the foregoing should suffice for purposes of your question. Thank you for your kind consideration and cooperation.
Richard Barrett Attorney The Nationalist Movement
At 12:11 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:
May I ask that you explain why we are not allowed to display this image? Under US law, it is allowed for reference materials (and other such documents) to be shown for informational reasons about the topic. This is clearly true in this case.
I am sending you an email in the hope that you will reply.
Cheers, and best wishes
Sam/smoddy
-- Try http://en.wikipedia.org - Wikipedia - the free encyclopaedia! _______________________________________________ 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
-- signature _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thank you for that wording. I might have spelt it out better had I not been in a rush... I'm British as well, so I know/care very little about US law. BTW, I agree that the templates are incorrectly worded, and I have started a drive to cut down on the numbers of spurious fair use claims (it's at [[User:Smoddy/Fair use assessment]]. Your point about content/use is a very valid one, and I actually debated that at some length on the aforementioned page.
Thank you for your support
Sam
On 8/3/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
His response is spot-on as far as I can tell, but it is important to see what he is saying. In a charitable interpretation, he is responding correctly to Smoddy's argument that promotional materials and logos are de facto "fair use" under U.S. copyright law. This is not true and our blanket statement template should be modified (as should all of them) to explicitly justify under which conditions it can be asserted as "fair use" -- not every use would necessarily be "fair". "Fair use" does not apply in a blanket way and should be spoken of in such a way -- Smoddy's language was imprecise and did not reflect a thorough understanding of the law (probably not his fault -- most of the "fair use" templates are VERY misleading!).
A proper response would be, "We think our use of this falls under the 'fair use' clause because 1. the ownership of the logo is clearly attributed and the resolution of the file provided is low, 2. we are using it for an educational purpose on a non-profit encyclopedia, and it enhances this effort significantly, 3. no uncopyrighted alternative exists. We believe that a judge would agree with us that such usage is 'fair' were it to be litigated."
Our Nationalist friend has not given us any reasons for why he would think the above claims would *not* qualify as fair, so it is hard to know why he thinks that.
The templates are misleading and should be changed -- they make "fair use" look like a free ticket, and they are from the standpoint of what the *content* itself is rather than its *use* (i.e., they say things like "posters are considered fair use" -- completely the wrong way to think about it). I've been working on some proposals along these lines which I'll link to on here at some point.
FF
On 8/3/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Well, Jimbo, if you want to stand up for fair use it appears that now's your chance. :)
There seem to be around 6000 images that link to the {{logo}} template.
Regards, Haukur
I (smoddy -- this is my second email address) sent an email to User:Crosstar about fair use on a logo at [[Nationalist Movement]] and [[Crosstar]]. I received this email back in response (my original email is at the bottom).
I am forwarding the email here as I am not subscribed to the legal mailing list.
Are there any suggestions as to the course to take?
Sam/smoddy
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: crosstar nationalist@nationalist.org Date: Aug 3, 2005 4:06 AM Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail -- fair use To: Smoddy sam.korn@gmail.com
Dear Mr. Smoddy:
Your assessment is incorrect and far from "clear."
"Fair Use" is considered on a case-by-case basis and, even after expensive and protracted litigation, outcomes may vary. Suffice it to say, we cannot render legal-advice to you, which must come from your own, independent legal-counsel. I can tell you that in approximately thirty-seven cases involving infringement of our trademarks and violation of our copyrights, however, we have won every one.
The US Copyright Office advises that:
"The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
The courts tend to lean toward protecting intellectual-property rights, as well they should, insofar such rights are protected by the United States Constitution.
Anyone who wishes his own intellectual-property rights to be respected (and that should include all of us) should respect such rights of others. Penalties for violation are severe and increased if repeated. In the Hale case, the fine was $200,000.00, plus $450,000.00 attorney fees, alone. Punitive damages may also be assessed, where conduct is wilfull, reckless or wanton, if, for instance, the offender persists, after having been placed on notice.
In this instance, the copyright/trademark owner has not given permission for its images to be used and will vigorously defend its rights in court, if need be.
The Copyright Office further explains that:
"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided...." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
It is the choice of the copyright/trademark owner whether or not to license use of its intellectual-property and, insofar as the owner does not approve of your project and wishes to avoid any misrepresentation of itself or any implied endorsement of your project, as well as to prevent any confusion in the mind of the public, permission is denied.
There are numerous other objections, but the foregoing should suffice for purposes of your question. Thank you for your kind consideration and cooperation.
Richard Barrett Attorney The Nationalist Movement
At 12:11 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:
May I ask that you explain why we are not allowed to display this image? Under US law, it is allowed for reference materials (and other such documents) to be shown for informational reasons about the topic. This is clearly true in this case.
I am sending you an email in the hope that you will reply.
Cheers, and best wishes
Sam/smoddy
-- Try http://en.wikipedia.org - Wikipedia - the free encyclopaedia! _______________________________________________ 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
On 8/3/05, Sam Korn sam.korn@gmail.com wrote:
I (smoddy -- this is my second email address) sent an email to User:Crosstar about fair use on a logo at [[Nationalist Movement]] and [[Crosstar]]. I received this email back in response (my original email is at the bottom). I am forwarding the email here as I am not subscribed to the legal mailing list.
I forwarded it to the legal mailing list. Alex has responded on that list, and also publicly at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems where he writes:
"I doubt that this symbol, also called an arrow cross, can be copyrighted or trademarked and is therefore in the public domain. It is basically a copy of a popular fascist symbol used in Hungary before World War II and if anyone "owns" it this entity is defunct and could not now assert any rights against such claims [456] [457] [458]. It is a variation of a common symbol that is used for many purposes[459]. It is stated that this symbol has its origins with the Magyar tribes of circa 1000 A.D. [460] Just because someone is using a common symbol does not mean that they can then claim copyright ownership or trademark status of that symbol that has a well-documented prior history. — (c) Alex756 17:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)"
By the way, anyone can post to that list even if not subscribed. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Juriwiki for details.
Angela.