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

Lock

[Ragein]

Load and aim at foot

Re:Lock

[u38cg]

I don't think that's fair. A trademark, as we should all know, must be defended where it's use could be considered infringing. Use of the trademark to identify the service in question is perfectly acceptable, as in wikipediasucks.com. However, the cited domain, wikipediaart.org could quite easily be taken to be affiliated to Wikipedia, particularly since the site is running a Mediawiki install. I can't say I blame them for going after this, though I hope they don't overkill it.

Open-minded folks at Wikipedia?

[Bashae]

Am I the only one who laughed after reading this?

Re:Open-minded folks at Wikipedia?

[eldavojohn]

Am I the only one who laughed after reading this?

Disclaimer: I have an account on Wikipedia by the same name as my Slashdot username and have contributed fair use music clips.

You may be able to point to Wikipedia not being open-minded. From the purging of webcomics to being attacked 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 fair use or having 1/5 of the world's population blocked from you.

They have established a totally free online encyclopedia. No ads. They have had to balance quality with quantity. They have established rules that define what is encyclopedic. I would wager that in the past year they are more linked to than any other domain on Slashdot. Their Google rankings reflect this.

If you are criticizing them because they are not as free and open as Richard Stallman, fine. But know that I have downloaded their articles and put them into a MySQL database at home and you are free to access them online and use them as an invaluable resource. Would they 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.

Wikipedia's Perspective

[eldavojohn]

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.

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 ... 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?

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.

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:It does seem like trademark and cybersquatting!

[Swizec]

the PETA that puts naked chicks in cages on the street

WHERE!? Where does this happen and how do I get there!?

Defend it or lose it

[itsdapead]

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.

One-line explanation of Wikipedia's behavior.

[Eevee]

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.

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:It does seem like trademark and cybersquatting!

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1: Go outside
Step 2: Head to your local...awe who am I kidding, nobody on /. would make it past step 1.

Re:Apple Art ? Microsoft Art ? Bank of America Art

[DriedClexler]

"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...

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.