David Gerard wrote:
Remember that the situation is not "OH NOES VAGUELY POSSIBLE (C) VIOLATION WE MUST FOLD TOMORROW!!1!" If you're talking about a possible battle, one should look to past battles, and particularly on contentious and politically charged issues like such an attack on Wikipedia would be.
It's worth considering that, as an academic work produced by a nonprofit, we have considerably greater scope for fair use. See the considerable quantities of quotes and fair use images in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu ? Not a squeak from the notoriously litigous Church of Scientology.
Of course scientology was on the losing end of a fair use case that is at the most permissive end of what is allowed under fair use. See http://www.publaw.com/fairuse.html and http://www.amquix.info/scientology_v_FACTNet.html
Furthermore, we have an active policy of aggressively removing copyright violations once notified, and even before being notified, which would get us many points in an actual courtroom. And the clock only starts ticking when you have been notified.
Effectively yes, although there is a strong argument that that is what should be done as soon as you become aware of a clear violation through any source. But many violations are not clear, and that leaves room for taking the benefit of the doubt. There are some clear rules about what goes into a takedown notice. It must clearly identify the material that is being infringed. It must clearly identify the infringing material. Most importantly, the person requesting the takedown must have the authority to make the demand; in other words, the order cannot come from some disinterested third-party meddler. Then the clock starts ticking, at which time the putative infringer has the opportunity to consider available options.
Beyond that, it is not easy for a plaintiff to mount an effective lawsuit, and unless substantial damages can be proved it may not be worth the expenditure. There are criminal law provisions for copyright infringement, but in such cases the standard of proof is much higher, and there must be an element of wilfulness in the infringer's actions in addition to the characteristics of a civil infringement. This would reflect an atitude where the infringer knew it was wrong, but did it anyway.
Furthermore, for the egregiously overbroad infringement suit Gregory Maxell hypothesises, the battle also goes out to the media. Imagine something more mediapathic. Suing cute fluffy kittens, perhaps? Not to mention that such a case would promptly bring to our aid ten thousand First Amendment ninja attack lawyers.
Absolutely! Publicity heaven! I would love it if the BC government started an action over its maps.
That is: we may well in fact be in a position to say "That's utter bullshit. Bring it on."
This is the reasoning behind [[Wikipedia:Avoid copyright paranoia]].
Those who suffer from copyright paranoia are a part of the problem. The fear that many people have of seeing the inside of a courtroom goes beyond reason. As long as people are unwilling or afraid to accept the responsibility of standing up for their rights, governments and the monied classes, who have no such fears or compunctions, will be empowered to cast their rights in an ever wider net.
Ec