[Wikinews-l] FW: [Foundation-l] [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won incourt

Fri Nov 2 20:26:19 UTC 2007

Brian McNeil wrote:
> Anyone from fr.wikinews subscribed?
> 
> Sorry for those who initially saw this on foundation-l, but I believe that
> at the very least fr.wikinews.org should cover this. A key goal in doing so
> is to make the point that the law affords WMF the same legal protections as
> an ISP.
> 
> I don't really know anything about French law, if this sets a precedent that
> will be referred to, or if the case can be held up in future in any way to
> show the Foundation has the common carrier immunity.

Yes, it can be used as a precedent. Not only in France. Every little bit 
helps and this is an important victory.

> OTOH, I'm not totally convinced that Wikinews could, as Florence suggests,
> work with a BLP policy as strict as that on Wikipedia.

Sorry, I meant Wikipedia :-)

Ant

> 
> Brian.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Florence
> Devouard
> Sent: 02 November 2007 19:11
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Cc: wikifr-l at lists.wikimedia.org; wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won
> incourt
> 
> An injunction was sought against WMF to force it to remove content from 
> the french wikipedia, that the plaintiffs deemed defamatory and 
> infringing on their privacy. The plaintiffs also sought 63,000 Euros in 
> damages, and requested from the WMF to provide contact information of 
> the anonymous editor responsible for the edit.
> 
> The court stated that the Foundation is a hosting provider in the sense 
> of article 6 of the LCEN ("Loi pour la confiance dans l'économie 
> numérique") and as such has no obligation to keep watch on the content 
> that it hosts and can not be held accountable for the content added by 
> contributors to the encyclopedia.
> 
> The same law states that hosting providers must remove illegal content 
> when notified it exists. In this case, the dispute centred largely 
> around when the Foundation was notified. The plaintiffs believed they 
> had notified the Foundation via e-mail, although the Foundation has no 
> record of the e-mails having been received. The court did not consider 
> e-mails sufficient notification.
> 
> Also, the court stated that when a hosting provider is notified about 
> libelous content, it only has to remove content that is obviously libelous.
> 
> In this case, the lawsuit was filed before the Foundation was officially 
> alerted. As soon as the Foundation received official notification, it 
> immediately removed the content in question.
> 
> The court also stated that once the Foundation was notified of the 
> problem, it acted swiftly and removed the content. As a result, WMF won 
> the lawsuit and will not have to pay for any damages. The request to 
> provide the contact information of the editor responsible for the edit 
> was also dismissed.
> 
> --------
> 
> This is very good news for the Foundation. We maintain that WMF is not 
> the publisher, owner or monitor on any of the Wikipedia projects (and 
> obviously not the WP FR). We are pleased to have our position upheld and 
> supported in a court of law.
> 
> In general, it is extremely important that we get used to quickly remove 
> any defamatory content, or privacy-invasive content, as soon as it is 
> brought to our attention. "We", in this case, mean "all of us". Editors 
> of Wikipedia, volunteers on OTRS, staff members. The more we care about 
> people requests of this type, the more we will be recognized as a 
> community caring about the truth and caring about the individual. Whilst 
> we must not fall into easy censorship and let ourselves be pressured to 
> remove information which should be available to humanship just because 
> it does not please a couple of people, it is also important to remember 
> that we are a top 10 website, widely read everywhere and that any 
> erroneous information on people may have huge consequences in their 
> private and professional lives.
> 
> Being available to answer readers concerns *is* important. There is no 
> gain for anyone to get in a court to solve such issues (except for 
> lawyers in fact). Most conflicts of that sort could be solved through 
> communication.
> 
> Whilst the current case was not strictly speaking a biography page, it 
> involved living people. So, my email is also a reminder that policies 
> such as the "biographies of living people" in the english wikipedia are 
> very helpful to both protect our projects and help making sure our 
> content is as reliable as possible.
> 
> Let us seek to avoid violence when violence can be avoided :-)
> 
> I suggest that every project get a look at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
> And consider building such policies in the near future.
> 
> A few links for more information
> * 
> http://wikimedia.fr/index.php/Communiqués_de_presse/La_Wikimedia_Foundation_
> reconnue_comme_hébergeur_de_Wikipédia 
> (in french)
> * 
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/2_novembre_2007#Proc.C3.A8s
> _gagn.C3.A9_par_Wikimedia 
> (in french)
> * http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy (in english)
> 
> 
> Florence Devouard
> 
> 
> The following firm represented the Foundation in this lawsuit:
> 
> HUGOT AVOCATS
> www.hugot.fr
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l