On 7/4/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 7/4/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It would also be nice to once and for all answer the question as to whether or not Wikimedia claims to be the "publisher" as the term is used in the GFDL.
Under US Law, Wikimedia is the "publisher" because they create "collections" of works of the Wikipedia site and "publish" them to the world as XML dumps. Whether electronic or in book form, they are publishing. This being said, given the nebulous and undefined state of internet IP law, whether they are a publisher or not, there's no legal precedence to determine liability, so at present they are operating in an area of experimental law on the frontiers of human knowledge.
It's not just the fact that the distribution is taking place on the Internet, though. The fact that everyone is an editor and every bit of content is a constant work in progress makes for a reasonable argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all. The more I think about it the more I see this as the most sane interpretation.
Ultimately, it's grey area to the point where it would greatly improve matters if Wikimedia would make an official statement as to how it wants to be treated. Does Wikimedia want to hold a copyright interest in works other than the logos? Does it want to be considered a publisher *for the purposes of the GFDL*? Any of the four combinations of answers are acceptable, but until one is chosen the content is that much less Free. This is especially true when an employee of the foundation implies that playing it safe and assuming the foundation does hold a copyright interest and is a publisher is somehow a violation of trademark law.
Anthony