Slashdot Mirror
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."
Load and aim at foot
They fitted George Orwell's coffin with rollers so he could turn over more easily years ago.
Am I the only one who laughed after reading this?
iI is hard to see what Wikipedia gains by litigating this matter but easy to see how they lose.
It is easy to see how they lose if they don't defend it also.
... now imagine I use that same domain to host a mirror of Wikipedia.org and push to steal their market share. I advertise and insert tiny little advertisements and I am commercial. And suddenly the good folks at Wikipedia are out of luck. Wouldn't you want them to be able to protect that which they've established?
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?
Ok, so that's an extreme case
So for malicious intent or even just to protect what they've created, I think they should be able to sue wikipediaart.org but I would hope they could just ask them to change the name to wikiartrights.org or artonwikis.org?
They probably would qualify for fair use if the site wasn't a wikimedia site. In this case, Wikipedia is concerned about people misunderstanding that the site is hosted and part of the wikipedia suite (or commons or whatever they call it). I think they would have no problem with the name if it had a different layout/format or if the name was different and it looked just like that. I don't know how this qualifies as fair use and Wikipedia may have a point in their fear that people would misunderstand the site.
My work here is dung.
Does anyone think he would get away with creating "CryslerArt.com" ?
I don't see why not. "ChryslerArt.com" might be a little more problematic.
Man oh man, does it get any better than this? I'm gonna go pop some corn...
Something more in tune with the Slashdot world: http://www.microsoftsucks.org/, and also: http://applesucks.org/
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
the PETA that puts naked chicks in cages on the street
WHERE!? Where does this happen and how do I get there!?
Quoth Wikipedia itself:
A trademark typically becomes "genericized" when the products or services with which it is associated have acquired substantial market dominance or mind share. The term is legally significant in that unless a company works sufficiently to prevent such broad use of its trademark, its intellectual property rights in the trademark may be lost.
IANAL but, as I understand it, if Wikipedia are too free and easy about defending their trademark they won't have a leg to stand on when "Wikipedia Britannica" or "Microsoft Wikipedia" appear.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
It's better to have a judge rule "it's fair use" now than have a judge rule "you didn't defend your trademark" five years from now.
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.
Step 1: Go outside /. would make it past step 1.
Step 2: Head to your local...awe who am I kidding, nobody on
Mozilla thinks the same way as Wikimedia and obviously disagrees with EFF.
From the official Mozilla/Firefox Trademark Policy
Domain Names
If you want to include all or part of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name, you have to receive written permission from Mozilla. People naturally associate domain names with organizations whose names sound similar. Almost any use of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name is likely to confuse consumers, thus running afoul of the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing. If you would like to build a Mozilla, Firefox Internet browser or Thunderbird e-mail client promotional site for your region, we encourage you to join an existing official localization project.
"ChryslerArt.com" might be a little more problematic.
Yeah, it's quite fraudulent to call anything by Chrysler "art".
Okay, okay, maybe the foresight in scamming pensioners...
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
When I saw the summary title, I immediately thought of paypalsucks.com. However, this is different. Nobody would think that paypalsucks.com was run by Paypal (*), and it is a commentary on paypal, so it is not infringing trademark. Wikipediaart.org sounds like something run by Wikipedia.
* Interestingly, googlesucks.com is owned by Google. They took the domain name to dampen criticism visibility. See: googlesux.com
Disclaimer: I am a 1950s socialist and have debated and contributed towards Maxist theory.
You may be able to point to the Soviet Union not being open-minded. From the purging of Citizens to being denounced by the co-founder, you may be able to point to things they've done that seem really really controlling and closed minded.
But look at what they've done and accomplished. Look at how they've come under attack themselves for their ideals or having over 1/2 of the world's population blocked from you.
They have established a totally classless society. No inequality. They have had to balance quality with quantity. They have established rules that define what socialist. I would wager that in the past year they are more talked about than any other country in this publication. Their power of veto in the UN reflect this.
If you are criticizing them because they are not as free and open as the West, fine. But know that I have access to a free public health care, education, transport and many other systems, to use them as an invaluable resource. Would the USSR have been as successful if they had taken a more open and free stance? They walk a fine line between their control and community control and I think they've done a fine job with their success as evidence.
May the Maths Be with you!
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.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Read the answer by Mike Godwin (Gerneral Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation) to reproaches by the EFF.
It's quite lengthy and technical, so allow me to summarize:
Using our trademarked term 'Art' in a non-Wikipedia web page such as yours [citation needed] inevitably tends to dilute and water down our historic trademark protections and liberties. Those who would sacrifice article quality for a little temporary respite from deletion are doomed to repeat it, poorly. Wikipedia is like a car, and taking the wheels off it to replace them with DRM'd ones that only work on a particular kind of road is like boiling a frog. Just consider what would happen if Hitler himself designed cars...
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
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.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Fair use deals with copyrights, this is a trademark.
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.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?