[Wikipedia-l] "Copyright violation" question (just the opposite of what you think)

[Ray Saintonge]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
>>Here is one method: Do nothing until the copyright owner presses
>>charges. 
>>
>
>Well, "pressing charges" is a bit late in the game.  Under the DMCA,
>an ISP has a "safe harbor" against copyright violations by users, so
>long as there is a "takedown" policy in place.  Upon the receipt of a
>proper written complaint, I'm required to take down the disputed
>material.  If the person who posted it wants to make a proper written
>response claiming to have the right to the material, then I can put it
>back up pending those two parties suing each other, but my liability is
>limited.
>
Of course, in the general case, waiting until someone presses charges is 
waiting too long to do anything, though there may still be anxious 
plaintiffs who try to by-pass earlier steps.  Hopefully those cases 
would be thrown out of court for failing to give a proper notice to the 
ISP in the first place. It does seem to me that "proper written 
complaint" involves more than a complete stranger appearing out of 
nowhere and saying "That's mine!"; there has to be a modicum of evidence 
that he has the right to make that demand.

Steve's "Tsvetaeva" article appears to present quite a different 
situation.  I have no reason to doubt that he had the original copyright 
on the material, and that at some point he chose to abandon that 
copyright - all this over a twelve year period.  We are really dealing 
with the situation where something which has gone into the public domain 
has ben used or incorporated into someone else's work, and a blanket 
copyright on that user's application has been alleged to apply on a part 
of that work that was no longer copyright.

This is a risk of success.  As Wikipedia develops a positive reputation 
for its content we can expect a lot more of this to happen.  In 
practical terms there will always be a time lag while things unfold, if 
for no other reason than that it takes time for our unknown plagiarist 
to "research" and put his material together.  Logs and other proof can 
be kept.  Under U. S. copyright law what I write today goes into the 
public domain on Jan. 1, 2098.  This letter is covered by GNU-FDL, but 
if my great-grandson chooses to dispute the fact in the year 2070, what 
evidence will remain?  (assuming that I had not raised the subject in 
the letter)   What confidence can we have that Jimmy will be able to 
argue the point at that time?

Even if every Wikipedia article has GNU-FDL statement attached there is 
no practical way of enforcing it upon all users.  At some point I read 
something from Lee where he had imbedded a watermark into a picture that 
he uploaded.  It would probably be helpful to embed a watermark that 
claims coverage under GNU-FDL in every picture that is uploaded; 
something of the sort could probably also happen with material in other 
special media such as sound.  Text material will remain a problem.  It 
would also be an interesting experiment to put watermarked and 
undisputedly legal but very desirable illustrations into some of the 
most popular articles, and try to track what happens to them on the net.

It is without regret that I predict that the copyright industry will 
eventually become the victim of its own recent successes.  Disney's 
mouse has been eating cheese for 75 years, but wholesome family values 
have inhibited any suggestion that in all that time he ever had to 
relieve himself in the can.  A mouse that is so full of shit will just 
have to blow up sooner or later.

Eclecticology