[WikiEN-l] What constitutes a copyvio?

[Alex R.]

From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com>
>
> Can you explain more about the "famous 108 notice"?
>
> I read this article, but found it only partially helpful:
> http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/notice.html
>
> And this:
> http://www.mlc.lib.mi.us/services/copyill.php
>
> And finally, a marked-up copy of the law itself:
> http://www.groton.k12.ct.us/mts/eg13a.htm
>
> --Jimbo

The 108 notice is the notice frequenters to physical paper libraries
often encounter. Usually the notice is affixed to the photocopy
machines. At the NYPL (New York Public Libary) the notice has actually
appeared on each photocopy page, marginally on the copy and the NYPL
has stopped allowing individuals to make copies, they must order the copies
from the Copyright service in the Main Library on 42nd Street. The glass
platen
has the photocopy notice pasted to it, so all copies have the notice on it.
You also have to sign a form stating that you are aware of the copyright
law.
Most libraries still allow self service photocopying and they just put a
notice
 near the photocopy machine. I often see them in law libraries:

"NOTICE: Photocopys may be protected by Copyright Title 17 United States
Code."

This section was advocated by library association lobbyists who were worried
that libraries might be held responsible for copyright violations that
occurred
on their premises due to the proliferation of photocopy machines. It is seen
as
a way to give notice to the person that their use of copying devices
provided
by the library or archive, may result in potential copyright infringement.

The original requirement was either to provide a copy of the notice from the
work
(i.e. copy the copyright notice page when any photocopies were made by
library
staff or to affix a notice) the law was interpreted different ways and there
was
not one way in which it was applied.

THE DMCA clarifed the confusion about the notice that was required and the
legal opinion your cited below Jimmy deals with the minimal notice
requirements,
i.e.  "a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright" if
there is
no notice on the work itself (the copy is only of a page out of a book is a
good
example and it seems this might apply to the kind of potential infringement
that
occur when people paste stuff from copyrighted web sites onto Wikipedia that
later end up in the history pages.

This article gives a pretty good background and explanation of the
provision:
http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/super_copying.htm. It is pretty clear to me,
but then again IAAL!

Also 108(f) might be a good reason to place a notice on all of Wikipedia
as it will put users on notice that it is there responsiblity to check
copyright
(actually this is equivalent to a copyright warranty disclaimer, though
specifically
mentioning sec. 108 might give Wikipedia some added protection, it is
another
argument to use if infringement is alleged).

Alex756