Re: [NetBehaviour] Wikipedia challenges Wikipedia Art
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 trademark infringement since we were using the Wikipedia name in the project. This is despite the fact that the project is a non-commercial commentary of Wikipedia. Wow that is fail on their part. It's like Barbie in a Blender, only with supposed freedom-lovin' folk rather than a multinational toy company. Is there anything people can do to help? - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Wikipedia challenges Wikipedia Art
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 until today. A brief history: On February 14th, 2009, Nathaniel Stern and I launched the Wikipedia Art intervention on Wikipedia, which generated knots of discussion on what was deemed encyclopedia-worthy. The full archive of this project is at www.wikipediaart.org. 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 trademark infringement since we were using the Wikipedia name in the project. This is despite the fact that the project is a non-commercial commentary of Wikipedia. Here is an article written by Corynne McSherry from the Electronic Frontier Foundation on the Wikimedia action, in support of the Wikipedia Art project: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- And this is a brief legal history along with a personal statement that we put up on the site: http://wikipediaart.org/legal-history/ It certainly has been an interesting few weeks and in my various consultations with lawyers, I have learned a *lot* about intellectual property and cyberlegal issues. Best wishes, Scott Kildall www.kildall.com ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Wikipedia challenges Wikipedia Art
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 point of it is to allow advertisers to compare products. So if you were running an encyclopedia and you wanted to point out that your encyclopedia is better than Wikipedia, you would be allowed to use their trademark. But how or whether it applies to wikipediaart's use of it seems unclear. In the US, this is covered by the First Amendment - http://www.barbieinablender.org/ Wikimedia really do not understand what they have done - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/051505.html - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Wikipedia challenges Wikipedia Art
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 under the fair use doctrine as it is direct criticism of Wikipedia. This might not be the case though for trademarks. 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 point of it is to allow advertisers to compare products. So if you were running an encyclopedia and you wanted to point out that your encyclopedia is better than Wikipedia, you would be allowed to use their trademark. But how or whether it applies to wikipediaart's use of it seems unclear. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: 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 trademark infringement since we were using the Wikipedia name in the project. This is despite the fact that the project is a non-commercial commentary of Wikipedia. Wow that is fail on their part. It's like Barbie in a Blender, only with supposed freedom-lovin' folk rather than a multinational toy company. Is there anything people can do to help? - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- * Pall Thayer artist http://www.this.is/pallit * ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Wikipedia challenges Wikipedia Art
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 mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Wikipedia challenges Wikipedia Art
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. Its weird to see how they've framed this issue as Nathaniel and myself as performance artists who have somehow hoodwinked the EFF, but I assume this is a media-spinning tactic. Anyhow, I feel at least relieved that the issue is in the public debate (e.g. blogs with comments) rather than in my email bin, which was a tad anxiety-producing and definitely time (and money)-consuming. Best, Scott On Apr 24, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Rob Myers wrote: 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. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Wikipedia challenges Wikipedia Art
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 discussion on what was deemed encyclopedia-worthy. The full archive of this project is at www.wikipediaart.org. 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 trademark infringement since we were using the Wikipedia name in the project. This is despite the fact that the project is a non-commercial commentary of Wikipedia. Here is an article written by Corynne McSherry from the Electronic Frontier Foundation on the Wikimedia action, in support of the Wikipedia Art project: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- And this is a brief legal history along with a personal statement that we put up on the site: http://wikipediaart.org/legal-history/ It certainly has been an interesting few weeks and in my various consultations with lawyers, I have learned a *lot* about intellectual property and cyberlegal issues. Best wishes, Scott Kildall www.kildall.com ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst he...@creative-catalyst.com http://www.creative-catalyst.com http://www.avatarbodycollision.org http://www.upstage.org.nz http://www.writerfind.com/hjamieson.htm ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
