[WikiEN-l] Next step in "fair use" cleanup?

[Ray Saintonge]

KWH wrote:

>on 3/24/06, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>>Fair enough.  Is it required that the original uploader provide the
>>>fair use rationale, or can someone else?  If we require the original
>>>uploader, that might be a problem.  If you're not the original
>>>uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming
>>>responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
>>>
>>>-Matt
>>>      
>>>
>>No, because if you add a proper rationale there won't be a lawsuit.
>>
>>Mgm
>>    
>>
>
>Incorrect. There will be a lawsuit if someone representing a copyright
>holder decides to file court papers. It's really that simple. The
>existence of the rationale changes nothing, and it's likely that the
>defendant in such a suit would use a different rationale crafted by
>their own lawyer as defense. And that rationale doesn't matter either
>- what matters is what the judge determines is the disposition of the
>four factors based on the evidence presented.
>
>Consider this - the purpose, nature, amount, and effect of the fair
>use are going to be facially obvious to the copyright holder - or at
>least their view of it. If they are fuming angry after seeing their
>work being used on Wikipedia, and they talk to their lawyer, then
>having a detailed rationale on the image description page isn't going
>to suddenly enlighten them. Nor is it going to sway the lawyer's
>advice to them on whether to file suit - they're going to make their
>recommendation based on potential for a successful outcome, and
>they're not going to take advice from the adversary.
>
I agree.  But not all suits are filed as a result of a rational analysis 
of possible outcomes.  Some lawsuits are the result of some individual 
who gets it into his head that there is a point of principle to be made, 
even when the damages that could be recovered are considerably less than 
the legal costs.  What a lot of copyright paranoiacs seem to ignore is 
the number of steps between the time the copyright owner notices the 
alleged infringement, and the time that a trial judge gives a decision.  
There are many opportunities on the way for either party to withdraw 
without any significant damage to anyone.

>>You can't expect someone to take responsibility for an picture someone
>>else put in an article. Too many people know too little about
>>copyright law or are just completely ignorant.
>>    
>>
>But that's exactly what we're doing every day when we edit - we're
>authors. This should be viewed as an ennobling thing for editors; our
>contributions are more significant than some comment on slashdot, as
>example. Let's not forget that our textual contributions usually
>exercise fair use as much as images do.
>
>I also don't care much for arguments that presuppose ignorance of the
>mass of people and a nanny mentality of "you don't understand this, so
>I will understand it for you."
>
Absolutely.  It's a favorite argument of politicians.

Ec