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:Wikipedia Review?

[rjstanford]

Because its obvious that those two websites pertain to Wikipedia, but are not Wikipedia, and as such they're completely legit.

Be honest now. If you see "Wikipedia Art," don't you think that's an Art site owned/run by the folks behind Wikipedia? Is this any different than "BBC Art" or "Encyclopedia Britannica Art"? Yet you'd never make that assumption over "Wikipedia Sucks" or other similar sites... which is why they're different cases.

Re:Statement by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of WM

[digitig]

So in summary: the EFF accusations are complete BS. And although IANAL, having read the letters posted on the wikipediaart website, it looks to me as if he's right. The Wikipedia foundation has not "demanded that the artists give up the domain name peaceably" and has not threatened to "attempt to take it by legal force". So that's no story, then.