[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail -- fair use

[Haukur Þorgeirsson]

Well, Jimbo, if you want to stand up for fair use
it appears that now's your chance. :)

There seem to be around 6000 images that link to
the {{logo}} template.

Regards,
Haukur


> I (smoddy -- this is my second email address) sent an email to
> User:Crosstar about fair use on a logo at [[Nationalist Movement]] and
> [[Crosstar]].  I received this email back in response (my original
> email is at the bottom).
>
> I am forwarding the email here as I am not subscribed to the legal mailing
> list.
>
> Are there any suggestions as to the course to take?
>
> Sam/smoddy
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: crosstar <nationalist at nationalist.org>
> Date: Aug 3, 2005 4:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail -- fair use
> To: Smoddy <sam.korn at gmail.com>
>
> Dear Mr. Smoddy:
>
> Your assessment is incorrect and far from "clear."
>
> "Fair Use" is considered on a case-by-case basis and, even
> after expensive and protracted litigation, outcomes may vary.
> Suffice it to say, we cannot render legal-advice to you, which must
> come from your own, independent legal-counsel.  I can tell you
> that in approximately thirty-seven cases involving infringement
> of our trademarks and violation of our copyrights, however, we
> have won every one.
>
> The US Copyright Office advises that:
>
> "The safest course is always to get permission from the
> copyright owner before using copyrighted material."
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>
> The courts tend to lean toward protecting intellectual-property
> rights, as well they should, insofar such rights are protected
> by the United States Constitution.
>
> Anyone who wishes his own intellectual-property rights to be
> respected (and that should include all of us) should respect such
> rights of others.  Penalties for violation are severe and increased if
> repeated.  In the Hale case, the fine was $200,000.00, plus
> $450,000.00 attorney fees, alone.  Punitive damages may also
> be assessed, where conduct is wilfull, reckless or wanton, if, for
> instance, the offender persists, after having been placed on notice.
>
> In this instance, the copyright/trademark owner has not given
> permission for its images to be used and will vigorously defend its
> rights in court, if need be.
>
> The Copyright Office further explains that:
>
> "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted
> material should be avoided...."
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>
> It is the choice of the copyright/trademark owner whether or not
> to license use of its intellectual-property and, insofar as the
> owner does not approve of your project and wishes to avoid any
> misrepresentation of itself or any implied endorsement of your
> project, as well as to prevent any confusion in the mind of the
> public, permission is denied.
>
> There are numerous other objections, but the foregoing should
> suffice for purposes of your question.  Thank you for your kind
> consideration and cooperation.
>
> Richard Barrett
> Attorney
> The Nationalist Movement
>
>
>
> At 12:11 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:
>
>>May I ask that you explain why we are not allowed to display this
>>image?  Under US law, it is allowed for reference materials (and other
>>such documents) to be shown for informational reasons about the
>>topic.  This is clearly true in this case.
>>
>>I am sending you an email in the hope that you will reply.
>>
>>Cheers, and best wishes
>>
>>Sam/smoddy
>
>
>
> --
> Try http://en.wikipedia.org - Wikipedia - the free encyclopaedia!
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>