Ray Saintonge wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind is the three-year limitation for taking action on a copyright violation. If something has been on the site for at least three years it is probably safe to keep. The argument that continuing availability may result in new limitation periods can probably be countered by invoking the doctrine of laches.
However, republishing in another medium, such as publishing a print edition of Wikipedia, probably would easily restart the limitation period.
That's debateable. With GFDL the history of the material should be traceable. A fairly recent case involving laches went against the Church of Scientology because they had delayed the enforcement of their rights. This was despite the fact that the limitation period had not yet expired when they started their action.
Two points are worth noting here. First of all, in case it's not clear, the doctrine of laches can only apply if the plaintiff knows about the infringement and fails to complain. If, as is very likely, a copyright holder did not know about infringing material on Wikipedia, then laches would not prevent a claim based on the continuing availability of the material within the statute of limitations.
Second of all, if the Scientology case Ec alludes to is the New Era Publications v. Henry Holt case that I've read, I should mention that laches was only applied to deny an injunction against publication. It did not prevent a remedy for monetary damages.
So the notion he suggests, that anything that's been on Wikipedia for at least three years is safe to keep forevermore, probably should not be used as a "rule of thumb" for copyright problems.
--Michael Snow