On 1/25/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/25/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Some people are definitely descending into copyright paranoia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abramoff_scotland_small.jpg
What, having your copyrighted work introduced into a trial means your
lose all your rights to it? If so, that would be useful, since Disney
has been in court a few times. Maybe Mickey Mouse has been PD all this
time and we didn't even know it! And haven't there been a bunch of
movies involved in court cases too? Free movie uploads tonight!
:-)
It's been established in the US that you lose trade secret status with
stuff in open court filings (hence a lot of sealed filings in civil
cases), and that copyrighted stuff doesn't lose copyright but enters
the "suitable for fair use in coverage in the media and legal
commentary and the like" realm.
Which if I put on my copyright-paranoid hat I would say is insufficient for
Wikipedia (aka "FAIR USE ISN'T FREE USE") but taking it off and being a
practical Wikipedia I would say is plenty sufficient.
In other words I don't think Wikipedia should (in this regard) hold itself
to a higher copyright standard than the New York Times.