Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 11/27/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Again, from a legal standpoint, I don't think it should matter whether 99% of editors and readers live in Poland or 5% do. So if someone *could* sue Wikipedia for an image in the Polish Wikipedia, then they probably *could* sue Wikipedia for an image in the English Wikipedia.
In case it's not clear, I'm implying here that Wikipedia probably *could* be sued for copyright infingement which is fair use even on the English Wikipedia.
I don't think that it's in anybody's interest to pursue such a convoluted legal scenario. A convoluted suit works against the plaintiff because there are too many places where his action can be derailed. The interests of justice would probably be best served by stripping issues down to the basics.
I've had some conversations with actual lawyers about this, and they've suggested that this is possible even in the case of images whose copyright is held by US companies.
"Possible" covers a very wide range of probabilities, many of which are not realistic. Unless there is something on the table, a lawyer's opinion is not significantly different from anyone else's. International copyright law is not something that most lawyers get involved with, so they have likely not had a chance to research it. Some of our non-lawyer Wikipedians are probably more familiar with copyright law than most lawyers.
The US company could get a ruling in a foreign court using foreign laws. Whether or not this ruling could be enforced is another question, but as Wikipedia is starting to hold assets in lots of different countries that part is becoming easier.
The whole topic is one big cloud of uncertainty. Has there ever been any legal case anywhere where the GFDL was a major issue? I think that there are some areas where we should welcome being sued. Without that things will only get worse. We just need to be clear about what issues are worth taking a stand on. We don't lack people who only guess at what the law is, and then proceed to interpret theri guesses restrictively to our disadvantage. All the time the underlying tone is one of wanting to be squeaky clean law abiders.. Law is just not that clear cut.
The deepening pockets argument is a problem one. Perhaps this can best be handled by having national chapters own their equipment, and setting up firewalls between national chapters.
Ec