On 7/13/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication"
as "the distribution of
copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other
transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering
to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for
purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public
display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a
work does not of itself constitute publication."
Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
court would agree with that.
Looking further, "To perform or display a work "publicly" means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any
place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle
of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of
the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means
of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of
receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or
in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
Seems 2) fits in closer with what Wikipedia is doing than the
definition of "publication".
Anthony