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