I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say.... Cheese Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided that they state where they got it from, and that the article may be copied by anyone else provided that they state where they got it from...
Can I alone bring a lawsuit against anyone else copying the article without stating where they got it from? Since the article is not exactly *copyright* I would say it's freely licensed under one condition. Does this really fall under copyright law? Or would it be more in the way of a standard contract?
There is an explicit contract that you cannot copy this unless you state it's origin. Do I have to show actual financial damages? Who is going to want to be the first to test the water? That's the real issue. If you lose, you still have to pay your own lawyer.
Will
************** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814855x1201410739/aol?red ir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&; bcd=Aprilfooter426NO62)
2009/4/26 WJhonson@aol.com:
I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say.... Cheese Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided that they state where they got it from, and that the article may be copied by anyone else provided that they state where they got it from...
Can I alone bring a lawsuit against anyone else copying the article without stating where they got it from? Since the article is not exactly *copyright* I would say it's freely licensed under one condition. Does this really fall under copyright law? Or would it be more in the way of a standard contract?
It falls under copyright law. See Jacobsen v. Katzer.
Multiple authors for the most part isn't a problem. With the possible exception of a few major battleground or very popular articles most wikipedia articles have someone who would have standing to sue.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 5:52 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/26 WJhonson@aol.com:
I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say.... Cheese Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided
that
they state where they got it from, and that the article may be copied by anyone else provided that they state where they got it from...
Can I alone bring a lawsuit against anyone else copying the article
without
stating where they got it from? Since the article is not exactly *copyright* I would say it's freely licensed under one condition. Does
this really
fall under copyright law? Or would it be more in the way of a standard contract?
It falls under copyright law. See Jacobsen v. Katzer.
Multiple authors for the most part isn't a problem. With the possible exception of a few major battleground or very popular articles most wikipedia articles have someone who would have standing to sue.
In Will's example it's even easier than that, as there's no GFDL muddying the waters, so the article is more likely a work of joint authorship, so therefore *all* the authors have an undivided interest in the work, and therefore standing to sue.
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 5:52 AM, geni wrote:
2009/4/26 WJhonson@aol.com:
I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say.... Cheese Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided that
they state where they got it from, and that the article may be copied by anyone else provided that they state where they got it from...
Can I alone bring a lawsuit against anyone else copying the article without
stating where they got it from? Since the article is not exactly *copyright* I would say it's freely licensed under one condition. Does
this really
fall under copyright law? Or would it be more in the way of a standard contract?
It falls under copyright law. See Jacobsen v. Katzer.
Multiple authors for the most part isn't a problem. With the possible exception of a few major battleground or very popular articles most wikipedia articles have someone who would have standing to sue.
In Will's example it's even easier than that, as there's no GFDL muddying the waters, so the article is more likely a work of joint authorship, so therefore *all* the authors have an undivided interest in the work, and therefore standing to sue.
Yes, and, absent any agreement to the contrary, any one of those same authors may grant a free licence.
Ec
2009/4/27 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Yes, and, absent any agreement to the contrary, any one of those same authors may grant a free licence.
Is that the case in all jurisdictions? It sounds to me like the kind of thing that might vary from country to country.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
In Will's example it's even easier than that, as there's no GFDL muddying the waters, so the article is more likely a work of joint authorship, so therefore *all* the authors have an undivided interest in the work, and therefore standing to sue.
Yes, and, absent any agreement to the contrary, any one of those same authors may grant a free licence.
Is Wikipedia:Copyrights an agreement to the contrary? What a mess.
geni wrote:
2009/4/26 WJhonson@aol.com:
I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say.... Cheese Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided that they state where they got it from, and that the article may be copied by anyone else provided that they state where they got it from...
Can I alone bring a lawsuit against anyone else copying the article without stating where they got it from? Since the article is not exactly *copyright* I would say it's freely licensed under one condition. Does this really fall under copyright law? Or would it be more in the way of a standard contract?
It falls under copyright law. See Jacobsen v. Katzer.
Multiple authors for the most part isn't a problem. With the possible exception of a few major battleground or very popular articles most wikipedia articles have someone who would have standing to sue.
The matters of principle in the Jacobsen v. Katzer appear to have been decided for the moment, but the denial of a preliminary injunction suggests that the practicalities are far from clear. While it's true enough that someone may have standing to sue with respect to most Wikipedia articles, how would it be worth their while?
Remember that pre-registration is still a requirement for a plaintiff who wants statutory damages or a recovery of legal costs. Without pre-registration he may get injunctive relief, and only recover actual damages.
Ec
2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
The matters of principle in the Jacobsen v. Katzer appear to have been decided for the moment, but the denial of a preliminary injunction suggests that the practicalities are far from clear. While it's true enough that someone may have standing to sue with respect to most Wikipedia articles, how would it be worth their while?
Remember that pre-registration is still a requirement for a plaintiff who wants statutory damages or a recovery of legal costs. Without pre-registration he may get injunctive relief, and only recover actual damages.
People don't edit Wikipedia for the money, they do it because they think it is a worthy cause. If they were going to sue it would be to further that cause - injunctive relief being the desired outcome. Monetary damages would serve as a deterrent but, as you say, it would probably be difficult to get any under US law. Of course, there is nothing that says you have to sue in the US.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge:
The matters of principle in the Jacobsen v. Katzer appear to have been decided for the moment, but the denial of a preliminary injunction suggests that the practicalities are far from clear. While it's true enough that someone may have standing to sue with respect to most Wikipedia articles, how would it be worth their while?
Remember that pre-registration is still a requirement for a plaintiff who wants statutory damages or a recovery of legal costs. Without pre-registration he may get injunctive relief, and only recover actual damages.
People don't edit Wikipedia for the money, they do it because they think it is a worthy cause. If they were going to sue it would be to further that cause - injunctive relief being the desired outcome. Monetary damages would serve as a deterrent but, as you say, it would probably be difficult to get any under US law. Of course, there is nothing that says you have to sue in the US.
People who edit for altruistic reasons are only rarely in a position to mount an expensive legal case when the best possible outcome is limited to injunctive relief with no possibility of recovering legal costs.
Ec
2009/4/27 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
People who edit for altruistic reasons are only rarely in a position to mount an expensive legal case when the best possible outcome is limited to injunctive relief with no possibility of recovering legal costs.
Well, yes. That's why suing US infringers probably isn't worth it. Pick a country with laws that suit us better and find infringers there to make your point with. (Presumably one would being doing this to make a point rather than actually intending to sue all infringers.)