Thomas Dalton writes:
Would defending one case reduce costs of future cases by virtue of establishing a precedent, or will it still cost enormous amounts even if with a precedent?
It depends on far too many factors to list here.
However, your question makes me wonder. Is your concern about fair use rooted primarily in concern about our telling reusers what is fair use?
No. It's concern about our reusers getting sued.
Delirium writes:
Unless I'm missing some recent change, historically copyright holders have been very wary of pressing lawsuits against educational and non-profit entities in cases where fair use might be a plausible defense, for fear of losing the case and establishing a strong pro-fair-use precedent.
Historically, there's only been one non-profit entity with a top-ten website. In recent years, copyright holders have been more aggressive at initiating litigation in response to the perceived threat of digital reproduction and redistribution. (Aside: between 1999 and 2005 I worked on digital copyright policy in Washington.)
Anthony writes:
As the only one who mentioned the DMCA in this thread I'll pretend that question was for me.
It wasn't, though I'm happy to respond anyway.
Besides the obvious argument that a free encyclopedia should contain free content, I think such mixing of free and non-free content goes against the spirit if not the letter of the GFDL. But I'm also for being honest about the reasons that content is removed.
I think this is an important consideration. We want the content we make available to be maximally unencumbered (with that lack of encumbrance enforced by the GFDL or similar license). "Fair use" content doesn't meet that criterion.
Please understand that I am resolutely in favor of fair use, of fair use/fair dealing doctrines, and even of occasional use of such content on our projects. But we can't pretend that the issues regarding protecting the Foundation and its projects and the communities we serve are the same as straight-up issues about copyright and fair use. There's some overlap, sure, but the issues raised are different, depending on context.
As any copyright lawyer will tell you, context is pretty much everything in copyright law.
--Mike
Mike Godwin wrote:
Historically, there's only been one non-profit entity with a top-ten website.
[citation needed]
I think that statement is wrong. Back when NCSA Mosaic had a hard-wired drop-down menu of 10 favorite starting websites (autumn 1993?), one of them was www.lysator.liu.se, belonging to LYSATOR, a (non-profit) students' computer club at Linköping University, and the first website in Sweden.
:-)
Mike Godwin wrote:
Thomas Dalton writes:
Would defending one case reduce costs of future cases by virtue of establishing a precedent, or will it still cost enormous amounts even if with a precedent?
It depends on far too many factors to list here.
I think it would reduce the probability of such a case. Still, all it takes is one crusader determined in his belief that he can distinguish his case from ours to overturn the applecart.
Anthony write
Besides the obvious argument that a free encyclopedia should contain free content, I think such mixing of free and non-free content goes against the spirit if not the letter of the GFDL. But I'm also for being honest about the reasons that content is removed.
I think this is an important consideration. We want the content we make available to be maximally unencumbered (with that lack of encumbrance enforced by the GFDL or similar license). "Fair use" content doesn't meet that criterion.
Please understand that I am resolutely in favor of fair use, of fair use/fair dealing doctrines, and even of occasional use of such content on our projects. But we can't pretend that the issues regarding protecting the Foundation and its projects and the communities we serve are the same as straight-up issues about copyright and fair use. There's some overlap, sure, but the issues raised are different, depending on context.
"Maximally unencumbered" makes sense but it does not provide an ironclad guarantee to the reuser. The reuser must accept his share of responsibility for what he uses; we cannot absove him of his duty of due diligence on a wide range of issues of which copyright is only one.
I have no problem with seriously limiting fair use, but much of what is labeled "fair use" often fails the minimal criteria for fair use. They completely ignore other possible defences.
As any copyright lawyer will tell you, context is pretty much everything in copyright law.
We have absolutely no control over the reuser's context.
Ec
Hoi, A practical question. Given the size of Wikipedia and Commons what would you expect practically from someone to do? The only realistic option for ensuring that our projects are usable within the confines of our license is when we make sure they. It is our responsibility. I could even argue that we fail the provisions of the license when we don't. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 11, 2008 11:33 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
Thomas Dalton writes:
Would defending one case reduce costs of future cases by virtue of establishing a precedent, or will it still cost enormous amounts even if with a precedent?
It depends on far too many factors to list here.
I think it would reduce the probability of such a case. Still, all it takes is one crusader determined in his belief that he can distinguish his case from ours to overturn the applecart.
Anthony write
Besides the obvious argument that a free encyclopedia should contain free content, I think such mixing of free and non-free content goes against the spirit if not the letter of the GFDL. But I'm also for being honest about the reasons that content is removed.
I think this is an important consideration. We want the content we make available to be maximally unencumbered (with that lack of encumbrance enforced by the GFDL or similar license). "Fair use" content doesn't meet that criterion.
Please understand that I am resolutely in favor of fair use, of fair use/fair dealing doctrines, and even of occasional use of such content on our projects. But we can't pretend that the issues regarding protecting the Foundation and its projects and the communities we serve are the same as straight-up issues about copyright and fair use. There's some overlap, sure, but the issues raised are different, depending on context.
"Maximally unencumbered" makes sense but it does not provide an ironclad guarantee to the reuser. The reuser must accept his share of responsibility for what he uses; we cannot absove him of his duty of due diligence on a wide range of issues of which copyright is only one.
I have no problem with seriously limiting fair use, but much of what is labeled "fair use" often fails the minimal criteria for fair use. They completely ignore other possible defences.
As any copyright lawyer will tell you, context is pretty much everything in copyright law.
We have absolutely no control over the reuser's context.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
A practical question. Given the size of Wikipedia and Commons what would you expect practically from someone to do? The only realistic option for ensuring that our projects are usable within the confines of our license is when we make sure they. It is our responsibility. I could even argue that we fail the provisions of the license when we don't.
Copyright law has become extraordinarily complex in the internet age. It became what it is because it grew up at a time when a lot of things which can now be done were unrealistic bordering on the impossible. A century ago duplicating and redistributing whole books for altruistic purpose was far more ridiculous than illegal. If you wanted to breach copyright some economic motivation was almost essential. The United States laws that required simultaneous publication of a work in the U.S. using U.S. printers were tantamount to legalizing the infringement of foreign copyrights through the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws. The U.S. has gradually come more into line during the last half of the twentieth century.
The U.S. still has some peculiarities, but so too does Europe, with moral rights and database protections, or the inalienability of an author's rights.
The internet has made the impossible possible. Major copyright owners can still win tactical courtroom battles, but their strategic prospects in the wider war are not that great. We can never be absolutely sure about the legality of any act.
We need to distinguish between our collective and individual responsibilities. While we should be very conservative about our collective responsibility, we also need to allow contributors to accept individual responsibility. Someone who insists that he wants to go much further then we collectively think wise can be given that opportunity if he accepts the responsibility up front. He cannot hide behind anonymity; he needs to understand that if the Foundation gets a proper takedown order it will comply, and that beyond that point dealing with the copyright owner will be entirely his problem.
Ec
Hoi, Ray sorry, but you are dodging the point. The argument I made was that by entering content that is incompatible with our license you are in breach with the license. The license does commit us as much as it does our end-users. By knowingly entering data that will prevent our database to be used by our end users you are in breach of the license. In a same way our admins who allow for such data are equally in breach of the license because they have the duty to ensure that our product conforms to its intentions.
When you are of the opinion that we should be prepared to litigate on this subject, I would suggest that you and everyone that agrees with you sets up a war chest. By putting your money where your mouth is, you are targeting money for confrontations. It is very different from sponsoring our Foundation. This is to help our end users when they are charged for using our data.
It is all well and good to say that it is the responsibility of a person to enter iffy data. It is our end user that you say have to put effort in finding what is problematic. This is not realistic given the size of our projects. Consequently, it is our responsibility that our data conforms with our license.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 12, 2008 10:11 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
A practical question. Given the size of Wikipedia and Commons what would
you
expect practically from someone to do? The only realistic option for ensuring that our projects are usable within the confines of our license
is
when we make sure they. It is our responsibility. I could even argue
that we
fail the provisions of the license when we don't.
Copyright law has become extraordinarily complex in the internet age. It became what it is because it grew up at a time when a lot of things which can now be done were unrealistic bordering on the impossible. A century ago duplicating and redistributing whole books for altruistic purpose was far more ridiculous than illegal. If you wanted to breach copyright some economic motivation was almost essential. The United States laws that required simultaneous publication of a work in the U.S. using U.S. printers were tantamount to legalizing the infringement of foreign copyrights through the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws. The U.S. has gradually come more into line during the last half of the twentieth century.
The U.S. still has some peculiarities, but so too does Europe, with moral rights and database protections, or the inalienability of an author's rights.
The internet has made the impossible possible. Major copyright owners can still win tactical courtroom battles, but their strategic prospects in the wider war are not that great. We can never be absolutely sure about the legality of any act.
We need to distinguish between our collective and individual responsibilities. While we should be very conservative about our collective responsibility, we also need to allow contributors to accept individual responsibility. Someone who insists that he wants to go much further then we collectively think wise can be given that opportunity if he accepts the responsibility up front. He cannot hide behind anonymity; he needs to understand that if the Foundation gets a proper takedown order it will comply, and that beyond that point dealing with the copyright owner will be entirely his problem.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/12/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Ray sorry, but you are dodging the point. The argument I made was that by entering content that is incompatible with our license you are in breach with the license. The license does commit us as much as it does our end-users. By knowingly entering data that will prevent our database to be used by our end users you are in breach of the license. In a same way our admins who allow for such data are equally in breach of the license because they have the duty to ensure that our product conforms to its intentions.
This is 1000 per mille incorrect. There is absolutely no duty conferred on our admins. Otherwise we would have to ensure they had at least the same level of legal scrutiny as checkusers.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Hoi, It is our admins that enforce policies. It is the collectivity of a project that fails in its duty to ensure that our data can be published under the license we claim our data is available under.
If you want to have it worded in a different way: it is up to all of us to ensure that our projects conform to the license that we make them available under. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 12, 2008 11:43 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Ray sorry, but you are dodging the point. The argument I made was that
by
entering content that is incompatible with our license you are in breach with the license. The license does commit us as much as it does our end-users. By knowingly entering data that will prevent our database to
be
used by our end users you are in breach of the license. In a same way
our
admins who allow for such data are equally in breach of the license
because
they have the duty to ensure that our product conforms to its
intentions.
This is 1000 per mille incorrect. There is absolutely no duty conferred on our admins. Otherwise we would have to ensure they had at least the same level of legal scrutiny as checkusers.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/12/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is our admins that enforce policies. It is the collectivity of a project that fails in its duty to ensure that our data can be published under the license we claim our data is available under.
If you want to have it worded in a different way: it is up to all of us to ensure that our projects conform to the license that we make them available under.
That is even worse than your previous mistatement.
There is no collective responsibility on the admins. Or if there was, I certainly forgot to sign the dotted line....
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Hoi, Please read what is written. Admins enforce. The collectivity has a duty. It is up to us all to ensure that our material can be published under our license. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 12, 2008 1:47 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is our admins that enforce policies. It is the collectivity of a
project
that fails in its duty to ensure that our data can be published under
the
license we claim our data is available under.
If you want to have it worded in a different way: it is up to all of us
to
ensure that our projects conform to the license that we make them
available
under.
That is even worse than your previous mistatement.
There is no collective responsibility on the admins. Or if there was, I certainly forgot to sign the dotted line....
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 12/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Please read what is written. Admins enforce. The collectivity has a duty. It is up to us all to ensure that our material can be published under our license.
What kind of duty? There certainly isn't a legal duty beyond our own contributions. Is there a moral one? That's pretty subjective, but I would say "no", simply because it's not practical. We don't have enough organisation to ensure that we "do our duty", and we can't have a moral duty to do something which we're not capable of doing.
On 12/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
It is our admins that enforce policies. It is the collectivity of a project that fails in its duty to ensure that our data can be published under the license we claim our data is available under. If you want to have it worded in a different way: it is up to all of us to ensure that our projects conform to the license that we make them available under.
Your statement about admin responsibilities is simply incorrect. On en:wp, it's been a long-standing principle that no admin is *obliged* to take any particular admin action.
- d.
Hoi, There is a distinction between what an individual admin does and what all admins together do. Our projects, including the English Wikipedia have policies that are enforced. When a legal requirement is put on one or more of our projects, individual admins may indeed not be part of the ones executing this. When such a requirement is not executed by the project as a whole it may mean that the WMF in its role as ISP will have to take down a project, temporarily or permanently. An example of this was the French Wikiquote. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 12, 2008 6:37 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
It is our admins that enforce policies. It is the collectivity of a
project
that fails in its duty to ensure that our data can be published under
the
license we claim our data is available under. If you want to have it worded in a different way: it is up to all of us
to
ensure that our projects conform to the license that we make them
available
under.
Your statement about admin responsibilities is simply incorrect. On en:wp, it's been a long-standing principle that no admin is *obliged* to take any particular admin action.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 12, 2008 12:37 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Your statement about admin responsibilities is simply incorrect. On en:wp, it's been a long-standing principle that no admin is *obliged* to take any particular admin action.
Same on en.wb. Admin tasks are performed when and if an admin chooses to do it. Admins are not robots and so cannot be mandated to do something. There are policies of course that try to limit some actions, but nothing that can force an action to be taken.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Jan 12, 2008 12:37 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
It is our admins that enforce policies. It is the collectivity of a project that fails in its duty to ensure that our data can be published under the license we claim our data is available under. If you want to have it worded in a different way: it is up to all of us to ensure that our projects conform to the license that we make them available under.
Your statement about admin responsibilities is simply incorrect. On en:wp, it's been a long-standing principle that no admin is *obliged* to take any particular admin action.
So admins have special powers but no responsibilities. What was the analogy with janitors again?
Volunteer janitors is more accurate. You can't /force/ a volunteer to do anything.
Chad
On Jan 12, 2008 1:05 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008 12:37 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
It is our admins that enforce policies. It is the collectivity of a project that fails in its duty to ensure that our data can be published under the license we claim our data is available under. If you want to have it worded in a different way: it is up to all of us to ensure that our projects conform to the license that we make them available under.
Your statement about admin responsibilities is simply incorrect. On en:wp, it's been a long-standing principle that no admin is *obliged* to take any particular admin action.
So admins have special powers but no responsibilities. What was the analogy with janitors again?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 12, 2008 1:20 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Volunteer janitors is more accurate. You can't /force/ a volunteer to do anything.
No, you can't force volunteers to do anything, any more than you can force employees to do anything. But volunteers generally *do* have obligations, and if they don't take care of their obligations, they're removed from being a volunteer.
I don't know of any volunteer janitors. There are various groups who volunteer to do cleanup projects, though, and people are generally assigned shifts and duties. A volunteer cleanup project generally wouldn't just hand out mops and say "go clean stuff up".
I'm not saying it's real-life applicable, but moreso just an accurate description of the job.
Chad
On Jan 12, 2008 1:48 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008 1:20 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Volunteer janitors is more accurate. You can't /force/ a volunteer to do anything.
No, you can't force volunteers to do anything, any more than you can force employees to do anything. But volunteers generally *do* have obligations, and if they don't take care of their obligations, they're removed from being a volunteer.
I don't know of any volunteer janitors. There are various groups who volunteer to do cleanup projects, though, and people are generally assigned shifts and duties. A volunteer cleanup project generally wouldn't just hand out mops and say "go clean stuff up".
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 12, 2008 1:59 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not saying it's real-life applicable, but moreso just an accurate description of the job.
What's the point of this project if it isn't applicable to real life? I thought Wikipedia was about making an encyclopedia, not playing a game on the Internet. If Wikipedia isn't applicable to real life, then I suggest the WMF drop its real tax exemption and stop collecting real donations. It'd probably be a good idea to get rid of the biographies on real people and take everything out of the real search engines.
Anyway, if there are no obligations or responsibilities, then it's not a job at all. Searching for an analogy, maybe licensure is a good one. Having the admin bit is like having a driver's license, or a ham radio license, or a concealed weapons permit. Special powers but no responsibilities.
The responsibility is to use the powers correctly when you use them. whether we should have a practice of requiring admins to do a quota of the janitorial work is another matter. i personally have thought it appropriate to do so.
On Jan 12, 2008 2:16 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008 1:59 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not saying it's real-life applicable, but moreso just an accurate description of the job.
What's the point of this project if it isn't applicable to real life? I thought Wikipedia was about making an encyclopedia, not playing a game on the Internet. If Wikipedia isn't applicable to real life, then I suggest the WMF drop its real tax exemption and stop collecting real donations. It'd probably be a good idea to get rid of the biographies on real people and take everything out of the real search engines.
Anyway, if there are no obligations or responsibilities, then it's not a job at all. Searching for an analogy, maybe licensure is a good one. Having the admin bit is like having a driver's license, or a ham radio license, or a concealed weapons permit. Special powers but no responsibilities.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 12, 2008 2:25 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The responsibility is to use the powers correctly when you use them.
Right, I thought that after I wrote it. Still fits most closely with "licensure". You get a driver's license and your responsibility is to drive safely. You get a ham radio license and your responsibility is to follow those rules. You get a concealed weapons permit and your responsibility is to use weapons appropriately. Do volunteer [[special constable]]s generally have any assigned duties, or are they free to use their powers however they see fit? I'd guess it's probably the former.
Would "no obligations" be accurate? Not sure how to say it, but the point is you're not required to do anything additional. As Andrew said, "no admin is *obliged* to take any particular admin action".
whether we should have a practice of requiring admins to do a quota of the janitorial work is another matter.
Another matter from what? I thought that was exactly what we were discussing: "Admin tasks are performed when and if an admin chooses to do it. Admins are not robots and so cannot be mandated to do something. There are policies of course that try to limit some actions, but nothing that can force an action to be taken." Ignore the part about robots, and change "force" to "obligate", and that's what I was responding to.
i personally have thought it appropriate to do so.
It'd almost surely be more efficient. Think back to my comment about handing out mops and telling people to "clean stuff". That's essentially what's happening now, right?
Wasn't the volunteer coordinator hired precisely to work on this issue? Any progress yet? Am I misunderstanding the volunteer coordinator's job?
Anthony wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008 12:37 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
It is our admins that enforce policies. It is the collectivity of a project that fails in its duty to ensure that our data can be published under the license we claim our data is available under. If you want to have it worded in a different way: it is up to all of us to ensure that our projects conform to the license that we make them available under.
Your statement about admin responsibilities is simply incorrect. On en:wp, it's been a long-standing principle that no admin is *obliged* to take any particular admin action.
So admins have special powers but no responsibilities. What was the analogy with janitors again?
Janitors do not have a high social standing in the real world. So some admins see themselves as cops rather than janitors; they would be delighted if they could walk around with a nice shiny badge that says "WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR" wherever they can be seen. Cops have an unyielding devotion to upholding the law without being distracted by facts or subtlety. The humble janitors among the admins are not the ones who feel chronically compelled to walk into alligator pits to rescue their own ego. They quietly proceed with their work, rearranging groups of articles in non-contentious areas, deleting what is no longer being useful, discussing changes with rationality and compassion. They don't scream to be noticed in their work, but it gets done.
Ec
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, It is our admins that enforce policies. It is the collectivity of a project that fails in its duty to ensure that our data can be published under the license we claim our data is available under.
If you want to have it worded in a different way: it is up to all of us to ensure that our projects conform to the license that we make them available under.
Where, in all of the GFDL does it say that a person who suspects that some writing may be a copyright infringement *must* act upon that information? That admins have the tools for enforcement of policy, means only that we trust them not to use those tools foolishly.
Nothing obliges us to be officious busybodies, frequent examples of such behaviour notwithstanding.
Ec
On 13/01/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, It is our admins that enforce policies. It is the collectivity of a project that fails in its duty to ensure that our data can be published under the license we claim our data is available under.
If you want to have it worded in a different way: it is up to all of us to ensure that our projects conform to the license that we make them available under.
Where, in all of the GFDL does it say that a person who suspects that some writing may be a copyright infringement *must* act upon that information? That admins have the tools for enforcement of policy, means only that we trust them not to use those tools foolishly.
Nothing obliges us to be officious busybodies, frequent examples of such behaviour notwithstanding.
Ec
If you edit an article you suspect to be a copyvio there could be potential issues but other than that no.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Ray sorry, but you are dodging the point. The argument I made was that by entering content that is incompatible with our license you are in breach with the license. The license does commit us as much as it does our end-users. By knowingly entering data that will prevent our database to be used by our end users you are in breach of the license. In a same way our admins who allow for such data are equally in breach of the license because they have the duty to ensure that our product conforms to its intentions.
When you are of the opinion that we should be prepared to litigate on this subject, I would suggest that you and everyone that agrees with you sets up a war chest. By putting your money where your mouth is, you are targeting money for confrontations. It is very different from sponsoring our Foundation. This is to help our end users when they are charged for using our data.
It is all well and good to say that it is the responsibility of a person to enter iffy data. It is our end user that you say have to put effort in finding what is problematic. This is not realistic given the size of our projects. Consequently, it is our responsibility that our data conforms with our license.
Your approach is an invitation to rampant cluelessness.
Iron clad guarantees for downstream reusers are an impossibility. Determining whether a particular text or image is legally protected is rarely obvious. That some idiots choose to repeatedly offer the same obvious material does not make the general case any more obvious. How do you know when an apparently public domain text really comes from a European protected database? How do you know that the person claiming that he is licensing material has the authority to grant that licence. Doing something "knowingly" requires more than mere suspicion that the act is wrong.
I did not say that we collectively should be prepared to litigate anything. I proposed putting $0.00 into a contingency fund for the purpose. Certainly WMF should be free to litigate what it considers appropriate. Saying that we will provide legal funding if end-users are charged for using our data would be utterly insane; it would leave us hostage to an endless stream of silly lawsuits when we have no control over that user's activities. That includes people who only believe that they took the material from Wikipedia, lose a suit for using that material, then sue us to recover their costs on the basis of the guarantee. It would be a winning suit for us, but it would still cost.
I believe in having individuals accept personal legal responsibility for iffy material. Reusers can be warned when this happens, and they can choose whether the risk it acceptable to them.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org