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
? 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
Furthermore, we have an active policy of aggressively
violations once notified, and even before being notified, which would
many points in an actual courtroom. And the clock only starts ticking
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
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
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.