On 5/4/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I really think the question has to be defined more specifically though. What is Wikipedia trying to accomplish? Are they trying to obey the laws of the countries they operate in, or are they willing to break those laws if they can get away with it?
I think we need to distinguish three possible outcomes: a) A court rules against the Foundation b) A court rules against the local chapter c) A court rules against an individual contributor
And at least four risk factors: 1) copyright infringement 2) libel 3) pornography 4) other illegal content.
A careful evaluation of the combination of these factors, in addition to the gravity of the case and its consequences for the encyclopedia and our other projects, is what any response should be based on. For instance, I think that outcome b) is absolutely unacceptable and must be fought at almost any cost. Even in a trivial case, it makes sense to go through the courts if the alternative is a precedent of chapter liability.
We might ignore a national law that defines nudity as pornography, fight a ruling which finds public domain reproductions to be copyrightable, or accept a special case, like the copyright claim on the Eiffel Tower light decorations, because it's not worth fighting. Hopefully, our case by case answers will over time evolve into reasonably general policies. That process can perhaps be sped up through legal expert opinion, paid for if necessary.
Erik