[Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthony wrote:

>On 7/13/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication" as "the distribution of
>>copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other
>>transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering
>>to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for
>>purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public
>>display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a
>>work does not of itself constitute publication."
>>
>>Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
>>rental, lease, or lending.  But then again, by that definition
>>*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
>>court would agree with that.
>>    
>>
>Looking further, "To perform or display a work "publicly" means—
>(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any
>place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle
>of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
>(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of
>the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means
>of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of
>receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or
>in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
>
>Seems 2) fits in closer with what Wikipedia is doing than the
>definition of "publication".
>
I don't doubt that this is a part of US law.  The point really is does 
the Code have the same definition of "publish" (and its related words) 
in the context of copyright law as it does in the context of defamation 
law, or any other branch of law where the definition may be an issue?

Ec