Wikipedia Threatens Artists For Fair Use

Hugh Pickens writes "Can a noncommercial website use the trademark of the entity it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not. The EFF reports that Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern have created a noncommercial website at Wikipediaart.org intended to comment on the nature of art and Wikipedia. Since 'Wikipedia' is a trademark owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, the Foundation has demanded that the artists give up the domain name peaceably or it will attempt to take it by legal force. 'Wikipedia should know better. There is no trademark or cybersquatting issue here,' writes the EFF's Corynne McSherry. 'Moreover, even if US trademark laws somehow reached this noncommercial activity, the artists' use of the mark is an obvious fair use.' It is hard to see what Wikipedia gains by litigating this matter, but easy to see how they lose."

Comments

Re:Wikia

[julesh]

Yet the Wikipedia didn't bat an eyelash when Jimbo started Wikia using 'wiki' in the name. Double standard.

In case you didn't know, "wiki" is a word that wikipedia borrowed from elsewhere, i.e. "WikiWikiWeb", aka "WardsWiki", which is available at http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl . So no, this isn't a double standard.

Besides, there are no rules against the same organisation using the same trademark in two different ways, so even if the word "wiki" was a Wikimedia invention, it wouldn't be a problem that they operated two different sites that had it in their names.

Re:Wikipedia's Perspective

[xouumalperxe]

Ok, not to defend them but just to get you thinking about their perspective, they are attempting to protect their name. Not profits or anything really evil, just their name.

What would you say if I wrote a mischievous program and hosted it at iwikipedia.org? Wouldn't you want them to be able to go after me and shut me down?

Actually, your second paragraph isn't even necessary. If I understand Trademark law correctly, either they actively defend their trademark, or they lose it altogether.

Re:Wikipedia's Perspective

[SharpFang]

Still they can take the same approach as Linden Labs did (in case of "firstlife" parody site, which used their logo): send a "Permit and proceed letter" - a one-time non-transferable free license to use the "infringing" trademarks.

By "protecting" the law means only "don't infringements leave unattended". Not "don't let anyone else use it, ever".

Statement by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of WMF

[saibot834]

Read the answer by Mike Godwin (Gerneral Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation) to reproaches by the EFF.

Of course it's not Fair Use

[Kuciwalker]

Fair use deals with copyrights, this is a trademark.

Re:Statement by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of WM

[digitig]

Did you read Godwin's statement? Did you read the letters on the wikipediaart website? Did you even read the message to which you were replying? They're not litigating, they're not even threatening to litigate. One of the letters they've written to wikipediaart specifically complains about wikipediaart misrepresenting them as threatening to litigate.