Case law has consistently held that an index of a work
may be independently subject to copyright. We are
certainly not using an insubstantial portion of their
index.
I've discussed this here and other places before, but
I do not believe we have a defensible fair use claim
in this case. Since I have always been on the losing
side of those arguments, I am just surprised something
changed.
-DF
And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here
before, that it would easily fall under the "fair
use" clause. We are using an insubstantial part of
their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own
internal purposes (it is in the Wikipedia
namespace, is it not?); we are non-profit; we are
not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them >
in any way; we are not even
looking at the content >
itself, just bibliographic information.
FF