On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:28 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 February 2010 00:16, Ian Woollard <ian.wooll...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> My understanding is that the Wikipedia doesn't really have any risk >> under the law. >> Provided the strictures of the DMCA are followed, any uploaded >> copyrighted material simply has to be removed promptly if they receive >> a copyright violation notice. If the strictures of the DMCA aren't >> followed then the Wikipedia/media could be in big trouble. > > > The problem for Commons is also reusability - Wikimedia could get away > with just about anything, but reusers may not.
The reality of the situation for reusers is that they are unlikely to be held liable for significant damages if they have plausible reason to believe they were using the image legally, and react appropriately if the owner informs them differently. It is practically impossible to in the legal sense prove the provenance of images you didn't produce yourself, as a reuser. Everyone assumes the bundled provenance is accurate, or at least not fraudulent. The systems in the US and elsewhere protect those who rely on provenance they have available. That does not mean we shouldn't pay attention to the problem. But we shouldn't let it cripple us. Wikipedia's policy of generally being stricter (in policy, and enforcement) than legal requirements in the US should help protect us and our downstreams. We should not get lazy and rely on that, but we also should not be too defensive or paranoid. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
