[Foundation-l] Litigation costs

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
A practical question. Given the size of Wikipedia and Commons what would you
expect practically from someone to do? The only realistic option for
ensuring that our projects are usable within the confines of our license is
when we make sure they. It is our responsibility. I could even argue that we
fail the provisions of the license when we don't.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Jan 11, 2008 11:33 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Mike Godwin wrote:
> > Thomas Dalton writes:
> >
> >> Would defending one case reduce costs of future cases by virtue of
> >> establishing a precedent, or will it still cost enormous amounts even
> >> if with a precedent?
> >>
> > It depends on far too many factors to list here.
> >
> I think it would reduce the probability of such a case.  Still, all it
> takes is one crusader determined in his belief that he can distinguish
> his case from ours to overturn the applecart.
> > Anthony write
> >> Besides the obvious argument that a free
> >> encyclopedia should contain free content, I think such mixing of free
> >> and non-free content goes against the spirit if not the letter of the
> >> GFDL.  But I'm also for being honest about the reasons that content is
> >> removed.
> >>
> > I think this is an important consideration. We want the content we
> > make available to be maximally unencumbered (with that lack of
> > encumbrance enforced by the GFDL or similar license).  "Fair use"
> > content doesn't meet that criterion.
> >
> > Please understand that I am resolutely in favor of fair use, of fair
> > use/fair dealing doctrines, and even of occasional use of such content
> > on our projects.  But we can't pretend that the issues regarding
> > protecting the Foundation and its projects and the communities we
> > serve are the same as straight-up issues about copyright and fair
> > use.  There's some overlap, sure, but the issues raised are different,
> > depending on context.
> >
> "Maximally unencumbered" makes sense but it does not provide an ironclad
> guarantee to the reuser.  The reuser must accept his share of
> responsibility for what he uses; we cannot absove him of his duty of due
> diligence on a wide range of issues of which copyright is only one.
>
> I have no problem with seriously limiting fair use, but much of what is
> labeled "fair use" often fails the minimal criteria for fair use.  They
> completely ignore other possible defences.
> > As any copyright lawyer will tell you, context is pretty much
> > everything in copyright law.
> We have absolutely no control over the reuser's context.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>