Wikipedia:Copyright issues

Discussion moved from wikipedia:village pump, and should really be refactored mercilessly into Wikipedia:Copyrights

When a site doesn't express any copyright notice, is it ok to use not edited content from its pages? In other words, is a resource considered public if there aren't anything stating the opposite? Please see http://www.fas.org/index.html . There are many definitions there I want to use, but i am quite lazy copyediting everything. Must I mail the webmaster? Or leaving the credits in the end of the term is ok? Thanks in advance. Yves 22:22 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)

No, copyright holds whether you assert it or not. Unless you have explicit permission, you cannot use the exact text on the page, whether edited or not.Andre Engels 22:30 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)

Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. However, this requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.

A cursory examination of http://www.fas.org/index.html would lead any reasonably prudent person to conclude that the content there is protected by copyright. Even so, copyright protection isn't unlimited in scope, and there are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html).

Section 107 reads (in pertinent part): "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include . . . the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." Accordingly, copying a substantial amount of copyrighted content because you are too "lazy copyediting everything" would probably weigh very heavily against a finding of fair use. However, this isn't a legal opinion.--NetEsq 4:50pm Sep 11, 2002 (PDT)

I understand, and agree. Thank you very much for clarifying this! I would only like to note that I said "lazy" because it's very difficult for me to write things in english. I know I don't need to worry very much with mistakes, but it's not easy for me to copyedit pages and pages of text - that is, formulate new text. Anyway, I am decided to do it, whatever how many (much?) time it takes.
So, I hope you don't get me wrong. I just wanted to economize efforts, so I could work in something else. Yves 00:20 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

In OLD pictures and painting, is there any copyright restriction in favor of the one who digitalized it? It doesnt, right? Can I just get them? Yes, I am lame concerning copyright issues... :-/ Yves 01:55 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your question, but both visual images and sound recordings are protected by copyright, and if you download an image from the Internet, it's a pretty safe bet that someone has a copyright for it.--NetEsq 7:51pm Sep 11, 2002 (PDT)

I don't know the answer, but I think Yves is asking about copyright on old pictures, like photos of Buffalo Bill, Queen Victoria and so on. In this case the original copyright would probably have lapsed (>75 years after death of owner), but would the person who digitized the picture and uploaded it have any copyright?

This is a very complex question. Works originally created before January 1, 1978, but not published or registered by that date, have been given automatic federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works is computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978 -- i.e., the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply. In no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002.

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN00505:|TOM:/bss/d105query.html| Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:SN00756:|TOM:/bss/d102query.html| Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office doesn't issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:SN00756:|TOM:/bss/d102query.html| Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer required in order to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some benefits accrue from making a renewal registration during the 28th year of the original term.

<< would the person who digitized the picture and uploaded it have any copyright? >>

LDC has provided an excellent overview of this issue, infra.--NetEsq 12:24pm Sep 12, 2002 (PDT)

("Infra" is lawyer-speak for "below":-)

You're safer with old pictures, because it's less likely that there will be a valid copyright on the original photograph or painting or woodcut or whatever. Also, just an ordinary scan isn't "creative expression" subject to copyright, so an exact scan of the Mona Lisa is safe, as is a plain scan of an old photo. But even something as simple as a cropped photo can be creative, or a certain photo composition such as a picture of an old statue taken under certain lighting conditions; also, the act of restoring or retouching an old photo is expressive and therefore copyrightable. Finally, there can even be copyrightable expression in a particular selection or arrangement of images. So the short answer is probably this: you generally can't go around grabbing photos on the net and uploading them here. If you think some particular photo might be safe (for example, because it looks like a simple scan of an old painting), then go ahead and upload it, and make sure you include an accurate description of where it came from so those of us who follow the law more closely can give more specific advice. If you did the photo yourself, of course, just upload it and don't worry about it. --LDC

What you said is right, but for some reason it leaves me shaking my head. It has something to do with the distinction you seemed (to me) to draw between being under copyright and being safe to use in Wikipedia. The whole point of "fair use" is that it's okay to use copyrighted images, and I respectfully suggest your explanation blurred that concept. (If you meant to, for policy reasons, that's okay, of course.) -- isis 12 Sep 2002

You're right, it isn't very clear (Gee, an attempt to explain copyright law that isn't simple and lucid? Imagine!). I'm a little unclear myself on fair use issues with images (I'm on pretty firm ground with text I think). I understand the four-prong test, and that we generally pass all of them well, except, in the case of images, the "extent of the portion of the work" test. What qualifies as a "excerpt" of an image? Or could most images be themselves interpreted as excerpts of a larger work? Or could perhaps low-resolution images be seen as excerpts of the high-resolution original? Or, alternately, do you think we're on such a strong foundation on the other three prongs that using a whole image presents no problem?

Certainly there are a lot of cases where a whole image is likely to be no problem--your videotape covers, for example, or a small album cover. Even if movie promoters sell classic posters as artworks, their market shouldn't be threatened by a tiny low-res reproduction used to illustrate an article about the movie. But let's take some more iffy examples: drawings from an online tutorial, AP photos of celebrities, paintings from a recent art exhibit (post-Berne)? I'm not sure "fair use" would cover our using such materials, but maybe I'm wrong.

Yes, I do think you may be doing 95% of your worrying about the 5% of actually questionable situations -- why don't you spend some of that effort worrying about leaving yourself liable for the unauthorized practice of law (by saying you're going to give legal opinions about copyrights) instead -- but I don't want to downplay the importance of the issues, either.

For one thing, nothing would make me happier than to be arrested for the unauthorized practice of law, because it would give me a chance to vent my utter hatred of that morally repugnant law and what I think of those who take it seriously; alas, since I don't charge any money for my opinions, I'm an unlikely target, so the legal momopolists will have to settle for suing Nolo Press like they did in Texas. I cannot express the degree of my contempt for those involved in that case--talk about stifling free expression. Requiring a license to express opinions about public laws we paid to create isn'thing but strangling free expression for purpose of protecting a market. I view those folks who sued Nolo Press as forms of life even lower than publishers who copyright building codes and technical standards, and perhaps a rung above West publishing. But I digress...

<< Yes, I do think you may be doing 95% of your worrying about the 5% of actually questionable situations -- why don't you spend some of that effort worrying about leaving yourself liable for the unauthorized practice of law (by saying you're going to give legal opinions about copyrights) instead -- but I don't want to downplay the importance of the issues, either. >>

As set forth by LDC, what constitutes the unlicensed practice of law is a First Amendment issue of the utmost importance, much more so than the issue of what is or isn't "fair use" of copyright. And in the unlikely eventuality wherein LDC finds himself indicted or sued for the unlicensed practice of law by virtue of his offering a quasi-legal opinion in the course of his work as a Wikipedian, there would no doubt be a host of real attorneys who would rush to his defense.

A number of professionals (i.e., accountants, real estate agents, insurance agents, and journalists) provide quasi-legal advice in the course of their work every day without running afoul of the law, and I'd be very surprised to see any lay person get into any real trouble for the unlicensed practice of law unless said lay person openly and falsely averred to being an attorney, accepted money from consumers for his or her services, and/or caused actual harm to said consumers by being reckless. This isn't to say that people (including lawyers) should not take care to avoid expressing an opinion in a manner which others might construe as legal advice, but one is more likely to encounter serious legal liability by removing mattress tags. (BTW, please note that nothing which I have stated in this post should be construed as legal advice or as constituting a legal opinion.)--NetEsq 4:03am Sep 13, 2002 (PDT)

In Delaware UPL isn't a crime but, rather, one of those sui generis offenses policed by a board of the state supreme court just like the Board on Professional Responsibility that polices lawyers. They've been on a witch hunt for several years now, ever since some citizens here starting banding together to help each other with proceedings in the family court, where there are serious problems (of constitutional magnitude) in many areas -- the first citizens' groups I am aware of were of persons who had been treated unfairly in the areas of orders for protection from domestic abuse and of property settlements in divorces. You would not believe how innocuous some of the statements were that the UPL Board successfully prosecuted.

The authorities' feeding frenzy didn't attract national attention until they went after Marilyn Arons, a special-ed advocate in New Jersey who represented a Delaware family in a proceeding here, because no one in Delaware would/does. The Del.Sup.Ct. opinion affirming the judgment against her in 2000 is at [ http://www.copaa.net/decisions/state/de_supct_arons.html ]. I won't try to describe to you the magnitude of the chilling effect that case has had here.

So, believe me, you are no more outraged about it than I am, but in Delaware these days LDC's statement, ?so those of us who follow the law more closely can give more specific advice", is actionable as UPL, and it scared me. I had hoped to slip my comment in where it could be taken as facetious but would alert him to an issue he had probably never realized existed, without making a big deal out of it. Obviously, I didn't do it right, and for that I sincerely apologize. -- isis 13 Sep 2002

Oh, no, that was no problem at all--your remark was entirely appropriate. It's just that you discovered that I was aware of the issue and that it's one of my hot buttons, so I took the opportunity to vent a little. I'm sorry you got caught in the crossfire. California's a little bit better--paralegals are given some lattitude and can handle things like routine wills, adoptions and divorces, but still can't represent criminal defendants or sign civil pleadings (or course they write all the pleadings, which are then signed by the licensed attorney they work for, who may or may not have read them). And there's still the equally idiotic rule that you can't own a piece of a law firm either. I try to make it clear when I give opinions here that they are just that--the opinions of a layman who follows the laws I paid for closely. Maybe I'll make a clearer statement to that effect on my user page, so people can follow my sig and find that out. --LDC

A cursory reading of In the Matter of Marilyn Arons leads me to the conclusion that this woman was tempting fate. Right or wrong, an objective observer would conclude that Ms. Arons was in fact engaged in the unlicensed practice of law, albeit for all the right reasons and notwithstanding the obvious conflict between Delaware state law and federal law. The fact that the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari isn't surprising to me at all. The law is full of unambiguous statements of rights for which the law doesn't provide any actual remedy. Some people have a hard time understanding this. -- NetEsq 4:23pm Sep 14, 2002 (PDT)

Among the people who had a hard time understanding it were the U.S. Dept. of Justice, which appeared as amicus curiae for her, and several public-interest groups that either did or tried to. Her group had been representing families in New Jersey (and a few in Delaware) for years with no problem and, as far as I know, is still doing so outside of Delaware. But, as I said, that was just the case that got national attention out of the many. And the Supreme Court's denying cert doesn't mean anything, since the chief justice has said publicly that they don't take every case that has legal merit but only the ones where they want to make a point -- like we hadn't realized THAT years ago. Now that they have essentially declared the 1st Amendment a local option, Delaware has opted out of it. -- isis 14 Sep 2002

<< And the Supreme Court's denying cert doesn't mean anything, since the chief justice has said publicly that they don't take every case that has legal merit but only the ones where they want to make a point >>

Denial of cert may not have any precedential value, but it most certainly does mean something to the people who have a very hard time understanding the fact that the law routinely denies the remedies that it purports to offer. It means that the law is capricious and indifferent, and that judges can pretty much ignore the law and rule whatever way they want, as they generally do. -- NetEsq 03:49 Sep 15, 2002 (UTC)

And every time you walk into the Supreme Court building and see that big "Equal Justice Under Law" over the door, and realize it means they're going to use the law to fuck us all over, equally, don't you just want to sit down there on the steps and cry? -- isis 15 Sep 2002

I'm not as concerned as you are about photos of paintings in art shows, because that's a core 1st-Amendment area. (There's going to be a label next to the picture giving us the info to disclose about the source, and if it's used to illustrate an article about that picture, or its subject, or its artist, or that show, or that school of painting, etc., it's going to be "fair use.") I'm more concerned (but still less than you) about drawings: A genealogical chart or drawing of a benzene ring would seem to me to be pretty much fair game as nearly 100% info and 0% creativity, but I'll give you some leeway for color scheme and typeface. More creative drawings could still be used "fairly," but that may be a slipperier slope. What does concern me as much as it does you, I suspect, is copyrighted photos, and there, the issue isn't so much where they came from as how we're using them -- if we're using them fairly and giving whatever credit we have for them, then there's no problem. If we don't know they're copyrighted and don't know the source to give credit, there may be a problem, but I think it's more with our discomfort than with the law.

I have come to the conclusion that you should keep trying to warn contributors about using text that is or may be copyrighted but settle for telling them images are okay as long as they document where they came from. If somebody pops up and claims we're violating their copyright by using a particular image, we're going to stop doing that, but if we make a rule of not using appropriate images because we're afraid once in a while we might step on someone's toes, that's precisely the kind of chilling effect on the free expression of ideas that the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect us from. Isn't it? -- isis 12 Sep 2002

You're preaching to the choir about the effect of copyright on free expression, but I personally try to bend over backwards to scrupulously comply with the letter of present law, because that gives me more personal credibility for my arguments on abolishing it. But I suppose you're right that I shouldn't expect others to have the same paranoia.

<< What qualifies as a "excerpt" of an image? Or could most images be themselves interpreted as excerpts of a larger work? Or could perhaps low-resolution images be seen as excerpts of the high-resolution original?>>

My gut feeling is that a copyrighted image would be construed as an inherently discrete piece of work and that any significant change to an image would constitute a derivative work, but this isn't a legal opinion.

<< Or, alternately, do you think we're on such a strong foundation on the other three prongs that using a whole image presents no problem? >>

Based upon my "gut feeling analysis," I think the relevant inquiry here would be whether the whole image is part of a larger work. In any event, I think that "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" would remain a key ingredient in any determination of fair use.--NetEsq 2:34pm Sep 12, 2002 (PDT)

When I uploaded the copyrighted Borodin sound sample I wrote about above (under "Copyrighted sound files") I had to check a box that said "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Unless I'm wrong, and samples this size are not copyrightable (which I don't think is the case), then I was lying when I checked this box, and so was everybody else when they uploaded sound samples that are probably perfectly OK under fair use. Shouldn't the message on the checkbox be changed? --Camembert 17:37 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

I don't know what your talking about with the checkbox, but sound samples of any size are copywritable. [1] (http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html) makes for good reading. And as for "Fair Use", [2] (http://www.benedict.com/info/fairUse/fairUse.asp) is also good reading. There is no easy way to calculate the amount of a work you can distribute without violating the law. By distributing any of the work, you open yourself up for a lawsuit. A judge then decides whether or not you were in violation. Robert Lee

One also needs to m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. Common sense goes a long way when dealing with fair use. There are also a lot of steps to be taken before it gets to a judge. Eclecticology 22:10 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

Please help> I am designing a curriculum that is going to be copywrite protected. If I use a couple of pages from Wikipedia (crediting Wikipedia w/link of course), must the entire project then become "free access" or only those pages? 12.14.2002

I am thinking of data dumpping from MeatBall and UseMod wiki. I found the page about http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?MeatballWikiCopyright. I think it allows matterials there to be under GNU Free Documentation License. But I am not quite sure. Please tell me if I can copy the pages in there to wikipedia. -- Taku 20:27 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

The copyrights there belong to the authors. You have to get permission from each and all of those quoted individually. So, basically, no. I noticed you did this for "Community Life Cycle", but that was corrected. If you have done it for any other pages, please delete them. -- User:SunirShah

Moved from user talk:Ed Poor

A photo of a painting on which the copyright of the painting has expired, cannot claim copyright. As such, virtually all, if not all, photos of paintings of the Kings of Europe etc. have no copyright protection. Rarely would anyone paint a new picture today of Henri IV etc. So, as I did earlier, inserting a picture of a painting taken from the Internet of Charles IX or Balzac, or Marie de Medici, is perfectly legitimate….DW

Sorry to use your page for this, Ed, but DW, I believe your assumption here is wrong. The painting itself isn't copyrighted, but the reproduction, i.e., the photograph, is. Photographing art is an art in itself. I don't have the legal background, but I did work in publishing a long time ago, and I sent many a letter to people asking for permission to reproduce photographs they took of famous people and artifacts. Check the back of any popular reference book. All the photographs must be credited. Danny 03:34 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

Quoth Wikipedia:Public domain image resources: Accurate photographs of paintings lack expressive content and are automatically in the public domain once the painting's copyright has expired (95 years after initial publication). All other copyright notices can safely be ignored. - Montrealais

DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT

As the owner of Wikipedia would have had to seek a legal opinion before setting Wikipedia up, he (they) would have been made fully aware by qualified counsel of the United States 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act established corollary to the Copyright Act in order to deal with the new realities of the Internet. Part of this legislation includes Title II, the “Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act,” with the primary provision being to place a limitation on the potential monetary damages that Online Service Providers and flow-through organizations like Wikipedia could face by allowing users access to copyrighted material placed on their site(s) by another party. Since the Act’s implementation, the Courts have dealt with some of these issues that upheld the liability limitations established.

Instead of being faced with a financial claim if the Wikipedia user’s material infringes someone's copyright, under the law, neither Wikipedia nor its Online Service Provider can be held liable provided they have complied with the rules established by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Those rules include:

Providing a notice to Users concerning copyright laws and a notice that unauthorized use of copyrighted material is prohibited on the site;
establish a procedure to receive statutory notices from copyright owners about infringements;
comply with the removal requirements from a certified copyright infringement notice;
create a policy for termination of repeat offenders.

The law also grants immunity for Online Service Providers and flow-through organizations such as Wikipedia from third party user claims, provided there has been a good-faith compliance with the statutory rules. Further, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act recognizes the massive volume potential through technology on the Internet and therefore the Act doesn't compel someone such as Wikipedia to monitor material posted on their site. The requirement states that an Online Service Provider is only obliged to take action when it has actual knowledge of an infringement by facts brought to its attention, or by formal notice from the copyright owner. The Act doesn't impose any requirement for an Online Service Provider or an organization such as Wikipedia to monitor or search out infringement.

Legal counsel for Wikipedia would have advised them to meet all the rules established under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Such being the case, under the law, any User posting a photo to an article has only to fulfill the Wikipedia certification requirement. Having complied, the User or Wikipedia doesn't have to "prove" anything to anyone until someone files a formal notice of copyright infringement. No one has the right to delete any photo placed in a Wikipedia article for copyright violation without providing proof of such violation or until Wikipedia has received a statutory notice from the copyright owner about an infringement. What has been happening is that certain Wikipedia users have gone about deleting several photos because they alone decided that the photos infringed on a purported copyright. They did this without providing the facts as required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and, without Wikipedia having received any legally required infringement notice. That doesn'thing to protect Wikipedia, it only harms it.

The argument on Juliette Binoche concerning copyright is basically opinions from some individuals and is in reality a worthless discussion because Wikipedia would operate only in accordance with the law. The statement that Wikipedia will be sued if someone posts a copyrighted photo is an absolute falsehood unless Wikipedia ignores a statutory notice of infringement from the copyright owner. Even then, no party may just claim copyright, they are obliged by law to provide Wikipedia with certifications and proofs.

Beyond photos, others at Wikipedia have looked at an article and on their own and have, without fact or proof, "decided" it was a copyright infringement. On numerous occasions, the person’s reasoning behind their deletion was because it looked like a copyright violation. Written text is different than photos because of fair usage provisions. However, when the text contains direct and substantive exact quotes then there is the same limited responsibility on the part of Wikipedia but it too requires the copyright owner to provide a certified notice of infringement in accordance with the rules of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

There is no reason to have arguments such as the one at Juliette Binoche. All it did was drive a Wikipedia User away and allow someone to improperly remove a photo that had been posted by a User in full compliance with Wikipedia rules. Instead of verbal combat that isn't founded by fact or by any law, these things can be avoided simply by realizing that Wikipedia isn't a renegade site and has obeyed the rules established under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As stated, Wikipedia isn't required by law to demand proof of copyright ownership and/or usage rights from Users, and it doesn't.

Much documentation and information on this subject is available on the Web. To read the Act in a PDF file, go to:

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf
for other information from law firms, universities etc., search: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
....Ron Davis

See also DMCA, which links a plain text version at [3] (http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html)

Bomis is registered for DMCA notifcations of course, also under the name Wikipedia: [4] (http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/bomisinc.pdf)

I think it's not clear that notifications require proof of copyright: just a written claim will suffice, unless a counter-notice of some kind is going to be made (I haven't read the sections on counter-notification provisions.) -( 19:36 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

"You may freely use these maps for non-profit use, if you like. Please link to this page in the case you use them." http://dobeln0.tripod.com/maps.html

Erasmus is copied from [5] (http://64.58.76.136/search/cache?p=%22Luther+had+furnished+the+needed+impulse+to%22&ei=UTF-8&vm=i&n=20&fl=0&url=ZypOuAf-zFIC:www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/erasmus.htm), a URL which says "© 2001" at the bottom of it. Does anyone know if we have permission to use this? Kingturtle 05:28 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Ron Davis advice will IMO be read as "You can post any photo you like". I still think it's bad it will lead to serious copyrights issues for distributing wikipedia on other medias than the web. I won't change my opinion. I will try to post only material that are GFDL or public domain. I think we should encourage every contributor to do the same instead of using some tolerances in the US law. Ericd 18:00 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I was not certain as to your protocol so I am posting this here for all users.

Mr. Brion Vibber,

Because of my qualifications, I was asked to take a look here and I saw where you requested a user to provide legal advice on the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I will say that from some of the pages in this site I’ve had the opportunity to assess, you have no shortage of people willing to give "advice." Your question makes it apparent you are not cognizant that a lawyer would never under any circumstances volunteer to give even a qualified professional opinion on your website. A lawyer might supply you with information, but never a legal opinion. I see that attorney User:Alex756 made certain to qualify his personal input. The owners of Wikipedia.org could not be operating here in accordance with its legal mandate without a lawyer having giving them full and precise advice already and would not be providing online services without the mandatory registration with the United States Copyright Office to protect themselves from potential liability under the DMCA for copyright infringement relating to content on their computer site. Too, Wikipedia.org would have obtained from the Copyright Office registry of website agents a designated agent to receive notification of any claims of infringement.

Just for the record, one part of your site’s "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" article reads:

"However, it is questionable that an open content site that willfully and outrageously flaunts the law by encouraging or condoning infringement and provides no mechanism for policing of copyright issues or dispute resolution as provided in the OCILLA would not be liable — in such a situation the courts may find even an open content site liable for copyright infringement"

You might want to assess this ambiguous statement. Section 512(c), DMCA, doesn't require a dispute mechanism. I’m assuming in your encyclopedia project you wish to avoid speculation. Wikipedia.org is responsible for the site, not its participants actions who might wildly flaunt the law. Of prime importance, If you access the site and read the legal opinion there and below, Wikipedia.org isn't required under the DMCA to monitor or discover infringing behavior or provide the " dispute resolution" mechanism referred to. Wikipedia.org must remain passive from its users, otherwise it could jeopardize its DMCA protection. Interfere and you become liable but being passive has its advantages at Wikipedia.org when unsuspecting zealous users, or the few willing participants in the know who encourage them, help keep the "sheet clean." Unfortunately that passive requirement means a lot of disturbing nonsense can go on unchecked and carries with it certain sizeable legal risks. I have only taken a cursory glance at your Website, but it appears your Mr. Wales is very cautious to remain passive. I note that the lawyers for Wikipedia.org did not require the computer program to create any such dispute mechanismn, it was created at Wikipedia.org only by a non-certified user or users. Not to insult anyone’s good intentions, but this above statement only encourages totally invalid, unnecessary, and potentially imflammatory arguments that distract participants from making valid contributions.

I see too where a few of your users have written some sort of copyright rules that can be accessed from the Main Page. This appears, at least on the surface, to be slightly misleading and I’m not sure if it is beneficial in any way because the authors are most definitely not the owners of Wikipedia.org or its attorneys but was created by any number of unqualified volunteers who wrote the pages without a legal certification. As such, they have no legal merit and in fact are a possible endangerment to your website because they have the potential of misleading users into believing what is written is Wikipedia.org policy that conforms to all legal statutes. I do note that on the GDFL, they provided a qualification of sorts under the terminology: "what follows is our interpretation of the GFDL." However, the "fair use" statements are opinions being expressed by unqualified people and in fact they are not needed under Wikipedia.org’s registration for protection under the DMCA. They too only cause baseless arguments that waste time.

Given the aforementioned, I thought this might be helpful so that you or other users don’t waste your valuable time trying to help Wikipedia.org with copyright infringement on photos or text when it is automatically protected by having applied and registered under the law’s requirements and has set up the user requirements as part of its computer program that obliges users to comply with when placing a photo on Wikipedia.org.

I see that you have people placing photos that they label as “taken by me” or similar words but that is in fact not a problem as like all photos or text, copyright is their responsibility and they can be sued personally by the copyright holder for perpetuating a fraud against Wikipedia.org. Your users should realize that Wikipedia.org complied with the DMCA that was designed to protect it from abuses in this manner or any other way the many innovators on the Internet might find to violate the law. You do not need volunteers to interfere or interpret copyright law. While the DMCA protects innocent parties such as Wikipedia.org, it doesn't shield dishonest users who knowingly violate copyright and who check the Wikipedia.org required box affirming that they are not violating any copyrights by uploading the file.

The first bit of material comes from a two websites from a Washington Law Office who are providing advice to the American Library Association. The lawyer’s opinions appear to be an original unqualified overview of the DMCA so you or anyone interested can go read them and not have to ask a visitor to Wikipedia.org for legal advice. One of those conditions that this law firm points out is that when dealing with copyrighted material available through its network, a registered provider must be passive. Mr. Wales, as best I can determine, has always been careful to be passive on this issue and never interfered. What also is important that can save you the personal worry, is that the law firm states that the DMCA doesn't impose the burden on Wikipedia.org (therefore certainly not you, me, or any user) to monitor or discover infringing behavior. And, Wikipedia.org is only required to take action when it has "actual knowledge" of an infringement (by facts brought to its attention or by notice from the copyright owner. Note the American Library Associations statement for its members that refers to not be held liable: "if the provider acts "expeditiously to remove or disable access to" infringing material identified in a formal notice by the copyright holder." I’m sure many users will be much relieved and stop worrying about the liability of Wikipedia.org. Mr. Wales has complied with the law and must remain passive so maybe as a site developer you should explain to all users the reason the program allows them to insert a photo on Wikipedia.org solely by checking the box affirming that they are not violating any copyrights by uploading the file and are only asked to volunteer additional information. I think this will eliminate the concerns everyone has that in fact and in law, Wikipedia.org cannot be harmed because of a user’s possible copyright violation. Too, it will eliminate people feeling the need to delete photos and engage in undesirable arguments. However, I admire Wikipedia.org and its apparent goals, so please explain to everyone that they should use discretion and honesty at all times for the greater good. Potential legal costs to defend a copyright violation are almost a non issue so long as Wikipedia.org complies with the requirements for a removal notification. While your users have a virtual free hand to place their photos or text at Wikipedia.org, the real danger has several facets. Copyright abuse of text renders Wikipedia.org meaningless. Repeated abuse will lead to time consuming and costly handling by the designated agent of a flood of formal violation notices. I see where some of the Wikipedia.org users are taking action on their own or as some sort of consensus by a few, claiming they are protecting Wikipedia.org. They should be aware that if they infringe on someone’s free use on an open content site, they risk a personal action from an individual or a rights group that will see them involved in costly legal jeopardy. And, as we all understand about the court system, no matter the outcome years down the road, it is a costly and stressful situation. But, equally as important, and I stress this: because the transmittal base of Wikipedia.org users is unknown and can be under the jurisdiction of any country in the world, it will automatically draw Wikipedia.org into the legal proceedings in the state of California court, at very great expense.

I trust this information passed on is of assistance in your determinations as a Wikipedia.org user.

The Law Offices of Lutzker & Lutzker LLP, Suite 450, 1000 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

They say this on their website:

The law also gives immunity from third party user claims, provided there is a good faith compliance with the statutory rules. It should also be borne in mind that it isn't necessary to actively monitor material on the Internet. The limitation requires an OSP to take action when it has "actual knowledge" of an infringement (by facts brought to its attention or by notice from the copyright owner), but it doesn't impose the burden on the OSP to monitor or discover infringing behavior.

The Act makes clear that the OSP isn't required to monitor its services for potential infringements.
The limitation requires an OSP to take action when it has "actual knowledge" of an infringement (by facts brought to its attention or by notice from the copyright owner), but it doesn't impose the burden on the OSP to monitor or discover infringing behavior.

Thank you for your detailed (if unofficial ;) opinion. However, your comments appear solely concerned with the legal liability of the owners of the website wikipedia.org for hosting potentially copyright-infringing material on the website, which is really not the matter in question; Mr. Wales and Bomis, Inc. are indeed already protected by the DMCA.

However, one of Wikipedia's goals, related to the selection of the GFDL license, is to be freely redistributable in all media: alternate document formats, CD-ROM versions, even printed books (most likely in per-subject extracts rather than the whole thing). What is the burden placed on someone who redistributes Wikipedia content, not as a DMCA-registered OSP, that may later be found to be infringing?

The strong concern of some such as myself over keeping apparently-infringing material out of the database is concern for A) the project's quality and reputation (avoiding plagiarism and dishonesty), and B) the ability for the project to fulfill its goals for third-party all-media redistribution (avoid handing off material to third parties that could get them in trouble). It is our impression (possibly correct, possibly incorrect; we are not lawyers) that non-Internet publishing isn't given the protections that the DMCA provides for Online Service Providers, and that not taking efforts as users and contributors to Wikipedia to "keep the sheets clean" would lead to A) decreased quality in the project (and a reputation for academic dishonesty) and B) reluctance of third parties to redistribute Wikipedia content as intended due to fears that they will be held liable for distributing infringing material.

Finally, re: "Your question makes it apparent you are not cognizant that a lawyer would never under any circumstances volunteer to give even a qualified professional opinion on your website." Certainly not, but a lawyer willing to provide legal advice to the project pro-bono would be welcome. :) If Mr. Wales has already received a professional legal opinion on the matter that covers the above concerns, he's kept it to himself. --Brion 18:14 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I'd appreciate if someone else can take a look at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. For the second time, someone placed the famous 1963 photo by Bob Jackson of Ruby shooting Oswald in the article (with no credits). As I see the photo has a copyright notice, I moved it from the article to talk. User:Hfastedge argues it is fair use. I'd like to get some additional opinions. -- Infrogmation 02:25 31 May 2003 (UTC)

A question: if I develop an online textbook on an upcoming Wiki textbook site is it copyright infringement to use the chapter order and structure of an established textbook in the area if I develop all of the content below that level ? Should I change the order arbitrarily to some degree ? Would it be enough to have several possible views of the order, one of which is the overall structure of the reference textbook ? User:Karlwick

I want to upload a screenshot of a particular 1980s computer's startup splashscreen. This would come under fair use (or better) wouldn't it? Does the same apply for in-game screenshots?