Hi,
I just subscribed to draw the community's attention to:
http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/
Apologies is if this is old news, but I hope people appreciate that the vast size of the project means that it's very difficult to find out who is aware, and to what extent, of any particular issue.
Best,
User:Bodnotbod from en.wikipedia.org
It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to force them to remove the trademarked Wikipedia logo from that site.
Other than that, Seigenthaler has said he's not interested in suing the foundation (and his lawyers have apparently informed him that he'd fail due to the CDA). I wonder if anyone else is going to come forward in the first place, you know, someone with standing to actually sue. I also wonder who it is that's running this site. (whois Registrant Name: Legal Department) Maybe a few ambulance chasers looking for a quick buck?
I'm reminded of those commercials on TV. "Have you been shot by a government employee who went postal? You may be able to join our class action lawsuit against the USPS. Contact the law offices of Bolovia and Bolovia at 555-1000."
Anthony
On 12/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to force them to remove the trademarked Wikipedia logo from that site.
Other than that, Seigenthaler has said he's not interested in suing the foundation (and his lawyers have apparently informed him that he'd fail due to the CDA). I wonder if anyone else is going to come forward in the first place, you know, someone with standing to actually sue. I also wonder who it is that's running this site. (whois Registrant Name: Legal Department)
The Village Pump solves the problem, thanks to [[User:Interiot]]:
"It looks like the the site is set up by QuakeAID (WHOIS tie-ins here), because they have long-standing complaints about Wikipedia's coverage of them"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:QuakeAID#Whois_WikipediaClassAction.org http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20675
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Hi, Same problem again: "Wikipedia cannot hold itself out as quintessential authority...". Now, I don't know that Wikipedia *does* do that. But people obviously have that perception. Time for a "Wikipedia does not guarantee the veracity of its content. Please fix or alert us to any errors that you find." disclaimer in big letters on every page.
Steve
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Gray Sent: Monday, 12th December 2005 10:43 PM To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Class Action
On 12/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to force them
to remove
the trademarked Wikipedia logo from that site.
Other than that, Seigenthaler has said he's not interested in suing the foundation (and his lawyers have apparently informed
him that he'd
fail due to the CDA). I wonder if anyone else is going to come forward in the first place, you know, someone with standing to actually sue. I also wonder who it is that's running this site. (whois Registrant Name: Legal Department)
The Village Pump solves the problem, thanks to [[User:Interiot]]:
"It looks like the the site is set up by QuakeAID (WHOIS tie-ins here), because they have long-standing complaints about Wikipedia's coverage of them"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:QuakeAID#Whois_WikipediaClassAction.or g http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20675
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
"Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote in message news:71cd4dd90512121025r42088e35m38bd4a9e3b045629@mail.gmail.com...
It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to force them to remove the trademarked Wikipedia logo from that site.
According to the footer on that page: "Wikipedia image, in its distorted format © Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is used pursuant the fair use doctrine"
IANAL but that sounds pretty demented to me :-)
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:01:36 -0000 "Phil Boswell" phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to force them to remove the trademarked Wikipedia logo from that site.
According to the footer on that page: "Wikipedia image, in its distorted format _ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is used pursuant the fair use doctrine"
IANAL but that sounds pretty demented to me :-)
IANAL but if it would have been drawn by an European person (or anyone worked on it from out here) it would be possible to force them to remove it since as far as I remember international law does provide the right to the author to request the removal of his work not otherwise released freely. (If it was not published under a free license; so it was acquired illegally anyway, IMHO.)
P.
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:01:36 -0000 "Phil Boswell" phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
IANAL but if it would have been drawn by an European person (or anyone worked on it from out here) it would be possible to force them to remove it since as far as I remember international law does provide the right to the author to request the removal of his work not otherwise released freely. (If it was not published under a free license; so it was acquired illegally anyway, IMHO.)
I'll take this moment to point out hte google ads on the side of the page. Perhaps an argument could be made that doing so is 'commercial' use of the logo, or at least in bad faith.
To me, it just seems a publicity stunt.
Phil Boswell wrote:
According to the footer on that page: "Wikipedia image, in its distorted format © Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is used pursuant the fair use doctrine"
IANAL but that sounds pretty demented to me :-)
I think it's already becoming clear to interested Wikipedians that much of this Class Action palaver is demented.
The Village Pump and various talk pages are painting the picture of a disgruntled man behind all this who seems to be involved in some dodgy "charity" dealings...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:QuakeAID#Whois_WikipediaClassAction.org
...and has been thoroughly called on it at Wikipedia. Though I suppose I ought to allow that it's possible he has been the victim of wrongful accusations.
What I can directly report is that I wrote to the email address on the Class Action web page posing as someone interested in his group (since I assumed there was a number of people behind it).
I simply claimed to be someone who was "concerned about accuracy within Wikipedia", I ain't lying, as a long term editor, I am ;o) But I hoped he would think I was a WP naysayer as opposed to a long time contributor. I asked whether any lawyers were involved and who was behind the group and how they planned to proceed.
Anyhow, in spite of the fact that the Class Action website says "email for more information", the reply I got was "who are you? Why should we share any information with you?"
I replied, restating that I was "concerned about accuracy in Wikipedia" and "hoped that we shared common ground". He went on the most peculiar rant saying "why should I join Wikipedia? Why should I edit it? If my business and my family have been lied about, why should I become involved? Why should I register?" I had not suggested he do any of those things, nor even - not even in passing - suggested he could edit pages he felt were wrong. I only asked for some basic information about his "Action". I began to suspect he may have received lots of email that day with those kinds of suggestions though, and was now at the end of an angry tether.
He also said "you don't understand the issues involved so perhaps you should just sit this one out?" Which seemed an odd response to someone who had merely asked for information about his cause.
From this I can draw the following conclusion: this person does not work well with others and will have one hell of a hard time actually pulling together any kind of a group with which to achieve any anti-WP aims.
Of course, there is one other explanation for his hostility, and that's that he knows I'm a long term WP contributor. My username is the same as at the beginning of my email address here. It wouldn't be a great leap to find me. However, he gave no indication that I had indeed been rumbled.
Perhaps someone would like to make a similar approach (expressing polite interest and gently enquiring about his cause) with a better hidden identity and see what sort of response they get?
User:Bodnotbod from en.
On 12/13/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote in message news:71cd4dd90512121025r42088e35m38bd4a9e3b045629@mail.gmail.com...
It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to force them to remove the trademarked Wikipedia logo from that site.
According to the footer on that page: "Wikipedia image, in its distorted format (c) Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is used pursuant the fair use doctrine"
IANAL but that sounds pretty demented to me :-)
Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
Well, yeah, in my opinion it's a pretty obvious case of fair use as far as the copyright goes. Doesn't Wikipedia have a tag for "logo of a company on a page about the company". The case for dilution is trickier, but still probably fair use (if it's even dilution in the first place). I think it'd be a horrible mistake to sue them over it, but hey, it'd be an interesting thing to watch.
Anthony
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/13/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote in message news:71cd4dd90512121025r42088e35m38bd4a9e3b045629@mail.gmail.com...
It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to force them to remove the trademarked Wikipedia logo from that site.
According to the footer on that page: "Wikipedia image, in its distorted format (c) Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is used pursuant the fair use doctrine"
IANAL but that sounds pretty demented to me :-)
Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
Well, yeah, in my opinion it's a pretty obvious case of fair use as far as the copyright goes. Doesn't Wikipedia have a tag for "logo of a company on a page about the company". The case for dilution is trickier, but still probably fair use (if it's even dilution in the first place). I think it'd be a horrible mistake to sue them over it, but hey, it'd be an interesting thing to watch.
Anthony
Looking further, apparently the legal doctrine is "trademark disparagement". I don't know much about trademark law, so I'm going to withdraw my statement about whether or not this use is fair use wrt trademark/dilution law.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, yeah, in my opinion it's a pretty obvious case of fair use as far as the copyright goes. Doesn't Wikipedia have a tag for "logo of a company on a page about the company". The case for dilution is trickier, but still probably fair use (if it's even dilution in the first place). I think it'd be a horrible mistake to sue them over it, but hey, it'd be an interesting thing to watch.
IIRC, most attempts by Company [x] to sue "Company [x] sucks" type sites for trademark infringement have ended in failure, except for the ones where the defendant settled.
-Mark
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Well, yeah, in my opinion it's a pretty obvious case of fair use as far as the copyright goes. Doesn't Wikipedia have a tag for "logo of a company on a page about the company".
The individual behind this is in Greece, not the US. How does this change things? I'm not sure what Greek law has to say about Fair Use.
The case for dilution is trickier, but still probably fair use (if it's even dilution in the first place). I think it'd be a horrible mistake to sue them over it, but hey, it'd be an interesting thing to watch.
Not worth suing; besides, all the better to make him look foolish.
-Matt
I called the number on the class action website and talked to someone on the phone. During the course of our conversation (partial transcript at http://wikip.blogspot.com/2005/12/i-just-talked-on-phone-to.html ) he told what seemed like several obvious untruths (about things like his location, his connection to QuakeAID, etc.). With enemies like this ...
On 12/13/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Well, yeah, in my opinion it's a pretty obvious case of fair use as far as the copyright goes. Doesn't Wikipedia have a tag for "logo of a company on a page about the company".
The individual behind this is in Greece, not the US. How does this change things? I'm not sure what Greek law has to say about Fair Use.
The case for dilution is trickier, but still probably fair use (if it's even dilution in the first place). I think it'd be a horrible mistake to sue them over it, but hey, it'd be an interesting thing to watch.
Not worth suing; besides, all the better to make him look foolish.
-Matt _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote
It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to force them to remove the trademarked Wikipedia logo from that site.
According to the footer on that page: "Wikipedia image, in its distorted format ? Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is used pursuant the fair use doctrine"
IANAL but that sounds pretty demented to me :-)
The diagnosis of dementia is not the job of a lawyer, but of a psychiatrist.
Ec
On 12/12/05, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I just subscribed to draw the community's attention to:
http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/
Apologies is if this is old news, but I hope people appreciate that the vast size of the project means that it's very difficult to find out who is aware, and to what extent, of any particular issue.
Hmm. It's nice to know that even the people wanting to bring a lawsuit haven't managed to get the story straight:
"Untrue information ... was eventually removed by Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales, but only after more than four months anguish and hard work by Seigenthaler" - yes, those anguishing four months of being unaware of it...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 12/12/05, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I just subscribed to draw the community's attention to:
http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/
Apologies is if this is old news, but I hope people appreciate that the vast size of the project means that it's very difficult to find out who is aware, and to what extent, of any particular issue.
Hmm. It's nice to know that even the people wanting to bring a lawsuit haven't managed to get the story straight:
"Untrue information ... was eventually removed by Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales, but only after more than four months anguish and hard work by Seigenthaler" - yes, those anguishing four months of being unaware of it...
Also, IIRC, it's Seigenthaler and not Chase that lives in Nashville. :-)
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org