Fw: [Wikipedia-l] An FDL test case: McFly

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alex R." <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] An FDL test case: McFly


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149-/[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:34 AM
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] An FDL test case: McFly
>
>
> > Erik wrote:
> > >Under this interpretation, Anthony is clearly in violation.
> > >If he refuses to make the necessary changes I strongly
> > >recommend taking legal action as otherwise this could
> > >easily become a precedent for third parties to use
> > >Wikipedia content without giving proper credit. We should
> > >probably send a warning letter anyway because of the
> > >"this license extends solely .."  part.
> >
> > Yes. I agree this is a violation since our copyright policy page clearly
> > indicates what actions need to be done to satisfy the GNU FDL
> requirements.
> > Each article is headed by its own history section and is thus a separate
> work.
> > But I don't think legal action will be needed if Anthony uses an ISP to
> host
> > his website. All we need is a takedown letter sent to the ISP if Anthony
> > refuses.
> >
> > >The way I know Anthony he won't listen to anyone without
> > >legal standing. I therefore would like to ask Alex in particular
> > >to take a look at this case and help in preparing the necessary
> > >letter.
> >
> > IANAL and this is only my opinion, but I no longer trust what Alex has
to
> say
> > about copyright law. He has on several occasions now indicated that
> Wikipedia
> > is not a copyrightable work! I think such a position is outrageous, but
> that is
> > just my opinion and not a statement of fact.
>
> I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying mav.
>
> > Alex wrote:
> >
>
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Do_fair_use_images_violate_the_GFDL%3F&diff=26034&oldid=26012
> >
> > Excerpt:
> > |The fact is that words in a dictionary are not subject to copyright
> > |and if an encyclopedia is the conceptual extension of a dictionary
> > |applied to concepts, theories, facts, historical developments then
> > |if Wikipedia is truly collaborative writing then the work that is
> > |created will be so generic as to be beyond the powers of copyright.
> >
> > I for one find it offensive to imply that what we do here is not
> sufficiently
> > creative to warrent copyright protection.
>
> That is not what I am saying. If it is really so fact oriented then the
> expression of those facts may be very limited, and really the "ideal"
> of NPOV is that all factual positions are included. I think you are
> really reading too much into my discussion and you are taking it
> out of context. I am talking about the limits of fair use and why
> we do not have to worry about such things. You really do not get
> it. I am sorry you are so quick to jump on my words out of context.
> What I am saying is that if we use factual material in Wikipedia
> and it is really information that is beyond the reaches of copyright
> law then we do not even need to worry about fair use. I think
> rather than accuse me of something you beleive is true, it is much
> better to try and understand what I am saying before making
> glossed over generalizations about what "I" believe. Why don't
> you ask me directly rather than talk about me behind my back?
> Is that really in the collegial spirit that we call Wikipedia? I don't
> think so, but since you didn't understand what I said, I can't
> blame you for misintepreting it, can I?
>
> > Delirium wrote:
> > >On the other hand, we've indicated intent to publish a paper
> > >version of the encyclopedia, which would very clearly be a
> > >single document.  Or are we claiming it wouldnt' be?  If each
> > >Wikipedia article is a separate document, any paper version
> > >we produce would have to have a list of five authors and the
> > >"history" section on *every single* article, which would take
> > >up a pretty large percentage of the total encyclopedia.
> >
> > I don't think so. Just print out the network location of the original.
If
> that
> > is not enough then we would eventually have to develop a bot that would
> extract
> > top 5 author info from each article and place it, along with the
article's
> URL,
> > in the footer on each page in a small font. It would take one, maybe two
> lines
> > at the bottom of every page.
>
> My problem is with the "we" everyone here thinks there is a "we" when
> the "we" only exists conceptually, not legally. If what JamesDay says is
> true, then only the five principle authors of any page have any standing
to
> question what goes on in a fork. I, Mav, Delerium or any other Wikipedian
> volunteer can't really say that they have a problem with someone copying
> a page because they have no complaint against compliance. Since the
> copyright owners (in the JamesDay intepretation) are not "us" but "them"
> only "they" have standing to complain. There is nowhere included any
> provision that requires that Wikipedia be mentioned by downstream
> users, Wikipedia is not an author in this interpretation of the GFDL
(which
> I do not agree with) and as an extension ADP probably can do what he
> wants because the authors of the article are the only ones who have
> a complaint against him, not the abstract "Wikipedia" that does not own
> any copyright but is only a vehicle for allowing people to have joint
> copyright. Indeed if ADP contributes to each article he can license it
> anyway he wants under the joint copyright theory as joint copyright
> holders can have nonexclusive licenses. humm. Food for thought.
> As Boorstein states:A joint owner cannot sue his co-owner for
> infringement".  Boorstein on Copyright sect. 3.02 citing Dead Kennedys
> v. Biafra 37 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (ND Cal., 1999)(co-owners of copyright,
> and their licensees, cannot be liable to one another for infringement of
> that copyright).  As the GFDL allows liberal licensing anyone who
> complies in a reasonable fashion with the license can never been
> liable for infringement.  There is no contract between the user and
> Wikipedia except what is in the GFDL, if the user has a reasonable
> intpretation (and as they did not draft the GFDL the GFDL will be
> intrepreted liberally in their favor) then the upstream authors can't
> really complain much about a downstream user.
>
> Alex756
>
>