Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
On 09/11/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Morton wrote: No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email in question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter. Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel site wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it via lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...). I heartily congratulate the two volunteers for being sued. Going through the courts with this will certainly be welcome because of the legal points that will be clarified. It will be interesting to see how they will show that someone has tortuously caused injury. (Para 1). Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party to it? Relief point 2(a) is interesting. In some cases a reference to Travelwiki may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY licence. Ray ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
One possibility lies within their terms of use: If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals but refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach consensushttp://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Consensusor make concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal -- to prevent you from disrupting our work together. The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals) does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which is a form of breach of contract. I'm glad that WMF has decided to file a counter-suit and help James and Ryan defend their cases. Deryck On 12 September 2012 10:13, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The more interesting legal line: 1) Does IB believe there is a legal basis that members of the public (in the absence of contractual obligation) cannot consider where they and their fellow hobbyists want to engage in a hobbyisyt activity, be it drinking beer, discussing philosophy, playing cards, or writing online information? 2) Does IB believe it is tortious to discuss or offer a service to members of the public, or for a member of the public to suggest to other potentially interested members of the public, that a different venue or provider of services might please them more than their present one? 3) Is IB aware of any litigation based upon that very novel theory? For example, - In the commercial world, does case law suggest it is tortious for Apple to either target PC users, or suggest PC users might prefer a Mac, or a store to state they price compare and are cheaper than another store, or a conference centre to state it has facilities better suited than a competitor for the needs of an inquirer and their peers? - In the social world does case law suggest it is tortious for a member of a tennis-playing peer group to suggest that in light of changed rules at the current venue a different venue might be better, or to propose to explore moving the tennis club to play at that venue? - Can you sue users of your bar (absent a contract) to force them to continue using your bar if you hear them planning to shoot pool elsewhere? This would be very odd, and novel. In short, IB's problem is it conceived WT's content, and the community writing WT, and the WT site/brand, as its possessions, but the first two are not. FT2 On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 09/11/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Morton wrote: No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email in question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter. Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel site wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it via lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...). I heartily congratulate the two volunteers for being sued. Going through the courts with this will certainly be welcome because of the legal points that will be clarified. It will be interesting to see how they will show that someone has tortuously caused injury. (Para 1). Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party to it? Relief point 2(a) is interesting. In some cases a reference to Travelwiki may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY licence. Ray __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
FT2, 12/09/2012 11:13: 1) Does IB believe there is a legal basis that members of the public (in the absence of contractual obligation) cannot consider where they and their fellow hobbyists want to engage in a hobbyisyt activity, be it drinking beer, discussing philosophy, playing cards, or writing online information? [...] In short, IB's problem is it conceived WT's content, and the community writing WT, and the WT site/brand, as its possessions, but the first two are not. Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the members of the public are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone with a Pub X cap in front of Pub X stopped all passing people and regulars that Pub X was renovating and to go to the new location Pub Xb across the street instead. Or that a clerk of Y bookshop used the list of all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them saying to send their next mail orders to the new postal address of Yb bookshop. Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say... Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
On 12 September 2012 08:45, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party to it? That's what tortuous interference is all about. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
To tackle both these at once: *@Deryck Chan, three trivial rebuttals: * 1. WT's mission is stated clearly, *Wikitravel is a project to create a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide.* I don't see any of the parties that are proposing or wishing to fork, not endorsing that goal thoroughly. They are merely stating they wish to pursue that goal on a different website, under different hosting behavior. 2. The TOU you cite state that WT is a built in collaboration by Wikitravellers from around the globe, not a site built in collaboration with IB. The consensus policy speaks to collaboration between members of the public writing, and its pages show that the community did not consider IB to have a heightened right to declare itself the community or the party obtaining mandatory agreement in that collaboration. The initial legal agreement (I gather) says as much. There is no evidence that WT'ers were not willing to collaborate with WT'ers, as the policy states. Rather, WT'ers did not like the hosting service IB provided, or felt they could obtain better, which is completely separate. 3. At the worst to use your own logic against itself, the departing WTers did indeed use the service while they felt able to follow the TOU you cite. When they realised they did not feel like collaborating, they did as it required - indeed demanded or asked they do - namely departed. And used their right to reinstate their CC content at the new host of their choosing, following discussion. Others had done so previously, and individuals had departed not en masse due to IB before. No WTer is forced to leave, or impeded in freewill. *@Nemo:* In fact AFAIK, this is legal toohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_billboard. 1. If a supermarket, for example, unreliably stocks Hallal food, garnering numerous complains over the years, and a person who shops at a competitor contacts or is contacted by members of the local Muslim community, or puts members of the community in touch with that other vendor, on the basis they provide a wider range of Hallal food of the types complained about, and at a better price, and as a result a number of local community members agree in social discussions that many of them feel like switching to shop at the other store. This is completely normal and legal, and happens every day. 2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty. Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was involved. FT2 On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hkwrote: One possibility lies within their terms of use: If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals but refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach consensushttp://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Consensusor make concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal -- to prevent you from disrupting our work together. The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals) does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which is a form of breach of contract. On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the members of the public are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone with a Pub X cap in front of Pub X stopped all passing people and regulars that Pub X was renovating and to go to the new location Pub Xb across the street instead. Or that a clerk of Y bookshop used the list of all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them saying to send their next mail orders to the new postal address of Yb bookshop. Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say... ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
FT2, 12/09/2012 13:09: 2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty. Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was involved. Nobody except IB of course. Deryck Chan, 12/09/2012 12:42: I'm glad that WMF has decided to file a counter-suit and help James and Ryan defend their cases. +1 Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
Of course; if a member of the local Muslim community put on a fake uniform for the shop in question, and stood outside handing out leaflets about the better place... that would be a problem. This is what IB appear to be alleging. All of these metaphor, however, are very interesting; but not really utile in advancing the discussion. We can all think up varying metaphors to support our points - fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :) Tom On 12 September 2012 12:09, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: To tackle both these at once: *@Deryck Chan, three trivial rebuttals: * 1. WT's mission is stated clearly, *Wikitravel is a project to create a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide.* I don't see any of the parties that are proposing or wishing to fork, not endorsing that goal thoroughly. They are merely stating they wish to pursue that goal on a different website, under different hosting behavior. 2. The TOU you cite state that WT is a built in collaboration by Wikitravellers from around the globe, not a site built in collaboration with IB. The consensus policy speaks to collaboration between members of the public writing, and its pages show that the community did not consider IB to have a heightened right to declare itself the community or the party obtaining mandatory agreement in that collaboration. The initial legal agreement (I gather) says as much. There is no evidence that WT'ers were not willing to collaborate with WT'ers, as the policy states. Rather, WT'ers did not like the hosting service IB provided, or felt they could obtain better, which is completely separate. 3. At the worst to use your own logic against itself, the departing WTers did indeed use the service while they felt able to follow the TOU you cite. When they realised they did not feel like collaborating, they did as it required - indeed demanded or asked they do - namely departed. And used their right to reinstate their CC content at the new host of their choosing, following discussion. Others had done so previously, and individuals had departed not en masse due to IB before. No WTer is forced to leave, or impeded in freewill. *@Nemo:* In fact AFAIK, this is legal toohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_billboard. 1. If a supermarket, for example, unreliably stocks Hallal food, garnering numerous complains over the years, and a person who shops at a competitor contacts or is contacted by members of the local Muslim community, or puts members of the community in touch with that other vendor, on the basis they provide a wider range of Hallal food of the types complained about, and at a better price, and as a result a number of local community members agree in social discussions that many of them feel like switching to shop at the other store. This is completely normal and legal, and happens every day. 2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty. Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was involved. FT2 On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: One possibility lies within their terms of use: If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals but refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach consensushttp://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Consensusor make concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal -- to prevent you from disrupting our work together. The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals) does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which is a form of breach of contract. On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the members of the public are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone with a Pub X cap in front of Pub X stopped all passing people and regulars that Pub X was renovating and to go to the new location Pub Xb across the street instead. Or that a clerk of Y bookshop used the list of all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them saying to send their next mail orders to the new postal address of Yb bookshop. Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say... ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
On 12 September 2012 12:27, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote: [...] fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :) Tom Oh they do. That's precisely what case law is. Inaccurate metaphors are the reason that courts worldwide have a ridiculous view on what constitutes a copyright violation. Deryck ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
On 12 September 2012 12:29, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: On 12 September 2012 12:27, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: [...] fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :) Tom Oh they do. That's precisely what case law is. Inaccurate metaphors are the reason that courts worldwide have a ridiculous view on what constitutes a copyright violation. Ouch, no case law is not metaphors. You won't see a court asking for metaphorical submissions to demonstrate guilt (or innocence). Tom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
*@Nemo: *IB haven't claimed an IB insider broke their contract with IB in any of this. Agree +1 as well :) *@Tom:* Case law is all about analogous situations so these matter very much. The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend to be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to be), but that's not alleged here. Who was involved with whom and relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it. (It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining I wouldn't have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really represented) FT2 On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: FT2, 12/09/2012 13:09: 2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty. Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was involved. Nobody except IB of course. On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: Of course; if a member of the local Muslim community put on a fake uniform for the shop in question, and stood outside handing out leaflets about the better place... that would be a problem. This is what IB appear to be alleging. All of these metaphor, however, are very interesting; but not really utile in advancing the discussion. We can all think up varying metaphors to support our points - fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :) Tom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
On 12 September 2012 12:34, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: *@Tom:* Case law is all about analogous situations so these matter very much. The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend to be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to be), but that's not alleged here. Who was involved with whom and relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it. (It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining I wouldn't have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really represented) Sure; but it's not a metaphor. It's a cited precedent. My apologies if your supermarket analogy was a true precedent rather than a metaphor. As to your second point; they explicitly make this allegation in the filing. Tom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
It would probably be hard to sustain a claim of deceit. As best I can tell, long before any wider discussion, all roles were clear or known. The email cited by IB clearly itself attempts to ensure roles and principals are not mistaken. The test of deceit would be whether persons who are or have considered changing where they write, testify that *they only made that decision* due to being misled as to who was affiliated with or representing whom, *and that* knowing that now, they would wish not to change hosts. But even that doesn't help IB because the easy answer is, Wikitravel is not discontinued by their action, so a person wishing to continue editing there is freely able to do so. The only people who will leave are precisely those members of the public who - knowing all the facts now known - *still* wish to do so. In which case they either were not deceived or any purported deceit has not changed their course of action. Individual authors, not IB, have a course of action. IB the legal entity was not deceived as to representatives nor was any misrepresentation directed at IB. Indeed, I doubt that any purported misrepresentation is capable of having affected IB in a legal sense. (Tautologically so: - those who might feel they were misled will stay anyway now they know the truth, those leaving regardless clearly either did not feel misled or else were unaffected by any claimed misrepresentation as they wish to leave even knowing the truth, IB has the ability to communicate to all affected any alleged misrepresentations so they can enjoy this choice) FT2 On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: On 12 September 2012 12:34, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend to be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to be), but that's not alleged here. Who was involved with whom and relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it. (It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining I wouldn't have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really represented) As to your second point; they explicitly make this allegation in the filing. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Getting corporate representatives to donate photos
I just posted this to commons-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2012-September/006660.html Please answer on that list if you have ideas :-) - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
