On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray
<andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>wrote;wrote:
2009/1/28 Sam Johnston <samj(a)samj.net>et>:
Material
in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not
require any kind of fair use consideration.
I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking about
protected
(copyrighted/trademarked) material being uploaded by others - for example a
periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject
to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for
sale!).
I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or
not there's a "buy a print now" clickthrough button? I can't see
anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster...
(and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful "lowest useful
resolution" requirement of the unfree material rules)
1. Upload high-resolution copyrighted image littered with trademarks as
anonymous user.
2. Immediately order poster of said image.
3. File against WMF, its chapter(s) and the printer for good measure
claiming [RI|MP]AA sized damages for copyright and trademark infringement,
submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence.
4. ???
5. Profit!
Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same parties.
I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might were
the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was
launched).
I find your scenario too conspiratorial to be believable. A person who
attempted this kind of thing would be in contempt for trying to subvert
the legal process by making the court complicit in an extortion scheme.
The scheme, which depends on speculative profits from law suits, doesn't
make economic sense. A plaintiff would need to make a considerable
expense himself just to get the mater to court ... and that's without
even considering jurisdictional issues.
Ec