Re: [Wikipedia-l] Copyright concerns (was Wikipedia spanks Encarta, Brockhaus)

Sj wrote: The criterion for copyright is for creative works rather than original ones. The position of translations is ambiguous because they are derivative works. They owe their life to the original source, and the publication of a translation without permission can indeed be an infringement of copyright. Nevertheless, in a country that recognizes derivative works they are the subject of a new and additional copyright that is owned by the translator even if his translation infringed the original copyright. A person who then infringes the copyright of the translator could be infringing two copyrights at once. Paraphrases do not in themselves infringe copyright. The information is not copyrightable; only the manner of saying things may be copyright. There is indeed a lot of naïveté in regards to copyrights, and it is abundant on both sides of the issue. Let's be realistic about it. For sure there is an initial liability on the part of the submitter, but that's an awfully tough case to establish when submitters are quasi-anonymous, or are willing to apologetically remove the offending material when the infringement is brought to their attention. The case is not made easier by the complexities of transnational issues involving the countries of the submitter, the server, and the original copyright owner. This makes talk of "full legal liability" rather hollow. The primary legal liability shifts to the Wikimedia Foundation rather early in the process -- maybe as soon as the material is substantively amended by anyone other than the original submitter. In the event of a formal review process it is clear that the original submitter will be taken off the hook because he will have had no input into the review process unless he is also one of the reviewers. The legal liability (or more correctly the potential legal liability) will fall on the Wikimedia Foundation as a legally incorporated person. The personal legal liability of the reviewers would depend on whether they knew that there was a copyright infringement. The reviewers are likely to be scattered around the world; there would need to be some serious money involved before a copyright owner would try to get them all into the same courtroom, or start proceedings in a variety of different jurisdictions. These are all important considerations when considering how realistic a legal case can be. A far more likely scenario is that we would be asked to remove the offending material. That would trigger a review of the material, and, if the request is justified, compliance. That would be the end of it in a great majority of cases. An irrationally litigious individual could go further, but nobody can protect himself from that eventuality. It is also possible that we may decide then that the request is NOT justified, but the number of variations there are too many to consider in this short response. I personally believe that we could show a lot more courage in matters of copyright. There is a great deal of material out there that is technically protected by copyright, but which could be republished with impunity simply because there is no-one there to own the copyright. This does not mean that we go ahead and willy-nilly republish anything that strikes our fancy; that would be an act of stupidity. Some criteria would need to be followed. Anything that we would so republish (Wikisource being most affected) would need to state the possible problems right up front, and to state that we would remove the material if so requested by a person who establishes that he has the legal right to make such a request. If no-one makes a request for three years, the limitation period for civil copyright suits, the doctrine of laches may be applicable. Ec