Dan Rosenthal wrote:
I have long felt that the difficulties when our collective copyrights are breached would be greater than any problem we would face in trying to abide by the rights of others. We have any number of layers to protect us from legal liabilities from copyvios, but there is very little effort to deal with being on the other side of the dispute. This is definitely a point that I would raise before the Board if elected.
Financially, I have been led to believe the WMF does not really have the
resources available to be spending on prosecuting intellectual property violations other than what we can do by hoping people abide by C+D letters. Which is a shame too, because I would very much like to see the foundation more litigious in its defense of our licenses by pursuing sites that use our contributors works without attribution, (as well as other violations of our IPs).
Sometimes, a lack of finances can be an easy excuse. Like anything else if it's otherwise a good idea, it needs to be given room in the budget. Michael Bimmler's allusion to moral rights made me wonder whether a case could be brought in another country that has strong moral rights legislation. We wouldn't be looking for money, though it would be nice to recover the costs of the suit. We want proper attribution.
The right of attribution is essential to maintaining the viral character of copyleft. Copyrights need to be vigorously defended, or they risk being treated as abandoned. If we tacitly consent to Baidu's improper use of our material it puts into doubt the use of the same material further downstream. There would be a presumption that they have a copyright on what they publish, and that would put a chill on anyone wanting to use their material. Commercial publishers may very well ask and easily receive permission to use "their" material. Acknowledging in public that it is used with Baidu's permission would then strengthen the fiction that there is a real copyright.
Ec