On 1/28/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is
upset at the images
being used, and the money from
the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If
someone object to images
being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I
recall my interactions
on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the
debates I had there.
Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get
nailed. The foundation will
be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to
defend the Foundation. It's
pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used,
then do not use them.
There are a lot more torts than just copyright infringement they could
pull out of the bag and use. They could claim
unfari competition, tortious interference, and a whole host of other
torts they may win with. It's cheaper, easier,
and honorable to simply take down the images and tell the offended party
it is being done as a courtesty. This makes
it appear the foundation is acting in good faith.
This argument is pure copyright paranoia. What I mean by that is that
Jeffrey is asserting as fact a hypothetical scenario ("The foundation
will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm
to defend the Foundation.") That's possible, but certainly not
What Jeffrey says is absolutely true. The way you would apparently have
it that you only believe it when there is a day in court, having lost
all our marbles losing our money as well. People donate their money to
have Wikipedia serve content to the world, not to play IANAAL brinkmanship.