The Issue Whether or not using the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica to form a list of articles that Britannica has but Wikipedia doesn't constitutes a violation of Britannica's copyright? The list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2004_Encyclopedia_topics Background The WikiProject:Missing encyclopedia articles currently uses four very large lists of topics that appear in other encyclopedias but do not appear in Wikipedia. Of these lists, two are from sources whose copyright has expired, one is a composite of multiple unnamed sources, and the last is based on the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica (hereafter "EB"). On the talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles#Copyright.3F, there is an ongoing discussion of whether EB holds a copyright in the list of articles itself. Under US copyright law (e.g. Feist v. Rural), a mere list of facts, topics, names, etc. can be protected by copyright if the selection and/or arrangement of those items is, in and of itself, a creative expression. Since the selection of articles for an encyclopedia is certainly an act of creativity, this may grant EB a copyright over the list of articles in their encyclopedia. If true, then creating derivative works from their list of articles (i.e. by making a list of articles that they have but we don't) is likely to be a copyright violation. As can be seen from the talk page, not everyone agrees that this applies to the EB list. This includes conflicting opinions from users Jamesday and Postdlf, both of whom I respect for their legal acumen. Precedent In March 2004, a very similar situation occurred when someone created a list of missing topics based on the Columbia Encyclopedia. At that time, it was decided by community consensus to delete that list as a likely copyright violation. Archive of that discussion (look under March 2): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=2710783 In my opinion, the only real difference between the two cases is that the EB list has existed for four months without being challenged, whereas the Columbia list was challenged and removed almost immediately after its creation. So what now? Either we need to accept that such a list, though potentially useful, is too much of a copyright concern to keep around. OR We need to come to some agreement that such lists will be maintained despite the potential liability. In which case, Jimbo probably needs sign off since he is ultimately the one who is liable. Thoughts? Related links WikiProject: Missing encyclopedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles Feist v. Rural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service US Copyright Code: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/toc.html -DF User:Dragons flight _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

No, I don't think a list of alphabetically ordered article names is in any way creative or copyrightable. The other list could - IMO of course - be reinstated, but asking Jimbo is probably a safe thing to do. -Mgm On 6/25/05, DF <dragons_flight(a)yahoo.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

So what now? Either we need to accept that such a list, though potentially useful, is too much of a copyright concern to keep around.

It is also of interest that in a later ruling on costs Wiredata was awarded $91,765.28 in legal fees. To a large extent this was because there was an attempt to extent rights beyond what was avaiable in copyrights, and a recognition that the defendant in such cases is often at a disadvantage. "When the prevailing party is the defendant, who by definition receives not a small award but no award, the presumption in favor of awarding fees is very strong. See Diamond Star Building Corp. v. Freed, 30 F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir. 1994). For without the prospect of such an award, the party might be forced into a nuisance settlement or deterred altogether from enforcing his rights.

This was not a matter of a countersuit. The copyright issue was already won by the defendants when they sought to recover costs. In Online Policy Group v. Diebold http://www.eff.org/legal/ ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/20040930_Diebold_SJ_Order.pdf Diebold was ordered to pay costs because it had misused copyright. I don't think that a firm with big bucks at stake is going to be deterred by legal fees, or the threat of being required to pay the opponent's legal fees. Defendants' difficulties are not limited to copyright law. Any defendant faced with a contingency chasing lawyer is going to be at a disadvantage. A plaintiff and his contingency paid lawyer should be held jointly liable for a winning defendant's fees in the same amount as the lawyer would have received if he had won. :-) Ec

While we should aggressively defend our rights, avoiding litigation is a wise policy. For one thing, particular judges don't necessarily follow the law that you think they will. Additionally although you may eventually get costs, you first must pay costs. I'm still not sure about the list of Britannica articles, but I am sure that our own method of generating endless article titles is probably more comprehensive than any list like that. I know that when I want to start a new article I don't look the topic up in Britannica first. So I think the list is probably worthless for our purposes anyway. Fred On Jun 28, 2005, at 3:38 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

On 28/06/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: The "obscure historical personage" is one of the key things for us; I think we're past the stage that we run the risk of failing to include a field of academic interest through not knowing about it (Having a bad article through no expert knowledge is another matter). But a lot of those personages will be in the 1911 Encyclopedia, or the various other old encyclopedias we have lists for - I just went to look at the project page, and was happily surprised to see that Britannica is just one of a set of similar projects being undertaken as comparisons. Hmm. The original Oxford /Dictionary of National Biography/ was originally printed in 1909. It'd be an excellent source for things like this; I wonder if an index is available? I note that the Australian and Canadian equivalents have had lists set up.