On 28/01/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey(a)wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
>In the example I mentioned, it may be worth
mentioning the Church of
>Scientology has had to pay the attorney's fees for the people they
>sued many a time.
It can go the other way -- depends on who wins. In a
case where we are
using someones copyrighted images and
they were posted by a n anonymous editor, I woud dare to guess we may
not alays be on the winning side ...
Oh, yeah. Only a fool *wants* this sort of thing to go to court.
>I suspect in a clear-cut case, you'd be
surprised how many friends
>Not that I consider it a good idea to push it, of course.
We should act in good faith always. Good faith means
if someone creates
a "cloud of doubt" and they are
an undisputed owner of the materials in question, a good faith action
would be to remove it.
" your honor, we always strive to act in good faith in all situations,
and in the present case, we were notified
the materials may have been copyrighted and removed them immediately IAW
with our policies. Given our
actions in good faith, we cannot be held liable as the other side claims
since we are simply a third party
interactive web service and we have complied with the DMCA at all times ..."
In a serious battle, the Wikipedia's proven leaning more toward
copyright paranoia than copyright violation will stand us in good
stead! And we do finally have proper channels for outside parties to
raise legal concerns with the Foundation.
So in the general case, yes, you're entirely right.