Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 11/27/05, Anthony DiPierro
<wikilegal(a)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