On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Scott Kildall lu...@kildall.com wrote:
A few weeks ago, I was sent a letter from the Wikimedia legal counsel
(they run Wikipedia) which challenged the Wikipedia Art project
(specifically the domain name, which I was the registrant of) on the
grounds of
Despite my xxxcriticismxxx jokes about Wikipedia Art, I hope you win.
Wikipedia seem to be stabbing themselves in the foot and cutting off
their nose at the same time.
James.
On 23/4/2009, Scott Kildall lu...@kildall.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have been keeping quiet about this development
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I broke down and looked it up... on Wikipedia. The fair use
provision for trademarks sounds a bit strange. It actually sounds to
me like it's intended more for commercial criticism than
non-commercial in that the
If I recall correctly, the fair use doctrine for copyrights does not
apply in the same way to trademarks. I'm pretty sure there is a fair
use provision specifically for trademarks but don't remember what the
difference between the two is. If this were a copyright issue it would
fall pretty clearly
I blogged about this -
http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2009/04/24/wikimedia-hates-art/
And I think the events are probably notable enough to deserve a
Wikipedia page. ;-)
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
NetBehaviour
Hi everyone,
I sincerely appreciate the support on this issue (and thanks to Rob
for blogging about it).
I'm hoping that Wikimedia won't try to pursue this matter further.
After sifting through Godwin's emails on the Wikimedia Foundation
list, it looks like they will probably let it be.
interesting! good luck keep us posted ...
h : )
Scott Kildall wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have been keeping quiet about this development until today.
A brief history: On February 14th, 2009, Nathaniel Stern and I
launched the Wikipedia Art intervention on Wikipedia, which generated
knots of
