Wikipedia Threatens Artists For Fair Use 235
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."
Lock (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say I write a shor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it is not simply an action taken by the foundation. It's a classic case of wikidickery. Some unknown artists create a page, call it wikipediart, throw some bullshit self referential art criticism nonsense up on it, and sit back waiting for the shit to hit the fan. They KNOW that wikipedia is chock full of nuts who will come gunning for them and their fake page. THAT is that performance art they were aiming for. So the page gets deleted, as they knew it would, and they set up a site infringing on wikiped
Statement by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of WMF (Score:5, Informative)
Read the answer by Mike Godwin [wikimedia.org] (Gerneral Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation) to reproaches by the EFF [eff.org].
Re:Statement by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of WM (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
(turns out, it is indeed the same Mike Godwin [wikipedia.org] of 'Law' fame.)
Re:Statement by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of WM (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Statement by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of WM (Score:4, Informative)
Trademark law forces trademark holders to litigate at the slightest hint of dilution. If they don't do it, then they won't have standing to file suit later when it's more serious. Don't blame Wikipedia, it's how the law is written.
Re:Statement by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of WM (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"especially since the artists were trying to edit content directly on Wikipedia. So, after listening to our editors' feedback, we sent a letter to Wikipedia Art that was aimed, not to threaten legal action, but to outline what our legal concerns were, and to try to begin a negotiation to resolve the matter amicably -- ideally by switching the domain name over to us, but not by requiring any content changes on their site at all."
So they told it their use was illegal and they should hand it over ... yes, that
Re: (Score:2)
There's irony. Mike Godwin used to be the staff counsel for the EFF. Now he's battling his old organization!
Time to start talking about Nazis and stop this madness.
Godwin (Score:3, Funny)
Read the answer by Mike Godwin
Damn. You just Hitlered the debate!
Re: (Score:2)
I had to read that comment twice. I think it was either the "It doesn't hurt them until it hurts them" bit, or the "Well son, labour has a price." that caused that.
Bad name (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple Art ? Microsoft Art ? Bank of America Art? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anyone think he would get away with creating "CryslerArt.com" ?
WikipediaArt.org is not different.
Re:Apple Art ? Microsoft Art ? Bank of America Art (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Apple Art ? Microsoft Art ? Bank of America Art (Score:5, Funny)
"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: (Score:2)
The Chrysler Building [wikipedia.org] is pretty nice.
Re:Apple Art ? Microsoft Art ? Bank of America Art (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Apple Art ? Microsoft Art ? Bank of America Art (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Open-minded folks at Wikipedia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who laughed after reading this?
Re:Open-minded folks at Wikipedia? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [slashdot.org] to being attacked by the co-founder [slashdot.org], 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 [slashdot.org].
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I think Stallman exaggerates; that is not the issue.
Regardless of what wikipedia has accomplished, both the people in the foundation and many of its high-ranked users are anything but open-minded. And, though I do not have a wikipedia account, I say this as a frequent visitor (at least once a day) who *loves* wikipedia. I'm just sorry about many things I regularly see when browsing through it and some things I hear about it.
Re:Open-minded folks at Wikipedia? (Score:5, Insightful)
I look at Wikipedia's failings more in wonder than in anger. They gave us one of the most valuable sites in the web for free, that's true, and we should be grateful for that. But then they go and shoot themselves in the foot.
What I have tried to do about this is to bring my contribution in a positive way. Whenever I see something that strikes me as being too pedantic at Wikipedia I try to correct it, often with good results. I have removed several of those ridiculous warning boxes from their articles, and, more often than not, no one put the boxes back.
Take, for instance, an article about a fiction novel or short story. The best reference about that, the book where it was first published, is cited in the references. How does that article lack references? Or boxes complaining that in some way the article is not written in a style suited for an encyclopedia. Well, if you think so, do us a favor, stop complaining and *show* how it should be written.
{{refimprove}} (Score:3, Interesting)
Take, for instance, an article about a fiction novel or short story. The best reference about that, the book where it was first published, is cited in the references. How does that article lack references?
Wikipedia wants multiple sources, and it wants independent sources [wikipedia.org]. That's what {{refimprove}} [wikipedia.org] is for: improving references to increase an article's verifiability [wikipedia.org]. A general encyclopedia wants to take an out-of-universe perspective when writing about fiction [wikipedia.org]; this often means concentrating more on critical and commercial reaction than on plot points.
Or boxes complaining that in some way the article is not written in a style suited for an encyclopedia. Well, if you think so, do us a favor, stop complaining and *show* how it should be written.
Sometimes I'll rewrite a paragraph or two, but then I realize I don't have time to rewrite the rest, so I slap on {{ad}} [wikipedia.org] or {{essay-like}} [wikipedia.org] or something s
Re:Open-minded folks at Wikipedia? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's leaving aside the fact that it might be your original research or synthesis. What, according to you, I'm "too fucking lazy" to spend hours on a wild goose chase around the Internet because you're not doing the right fucking thing in the first place.
Re:Open-minded folks in USSR? (Score:5, Funny)
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 [wikipedia.org] to being denounced by the co-founder [wikipedia.org], 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 [wikipedia.org] for their ideals or having over 1/2 of the world's population blocked from you [wikipedia.org].
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I would wager that in the past year they are more linked to than any other domain on Slashdot. Their Google rankings reflect this.
Wait, you think that Google rankings are based on actual pageviews? okaaay...
No, it's based on how many other web sites link to them. Establishing a link to Wikipedia is like an internet "vote", and their system does eliminate self-reinforcement networks (ballot stuffers).
Re:Open-minded folks at Wikipedia? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. Wikipedia became -- as I perfectly predicted -- a horrible joke of itself.
"Everyone can edit" is dead and gone forever. A ruling class has established. And they are controlling Wikipedia reality and laws now. Getting in gets harder and harder, as more and more entry rules and hierarchy levels get implemented.
I wonder if anyone ever really believed that it would "just work" with giving access to everyone. I mean, sure, we all had a strong wishful thinking syndrome. I quite possibly was one of Wikipedia's strongest defenders. But I soon realize how stupid and ridiculous it really is.
I mean what other community allows anyone to anonymously write whatever he thinks he's right? 4chan. We should have looked at how that turned out.^^
Interestingly (or not so interestingly), it went the same way that every other organizational system goes. The bigger it gets, the more the opinions differ.
But nobody is wrong, because on many many subjects, it is either impossible to determine the physical truth, or the whole thing is just relative to the person, which is a basic law of physics, that is somehow completely ignored at Wikipedia.
My best shot at fixing this, would implement the possibility for an infinite cascading views [like CSS cascading rules are creating the final layout] for one article, and reality-relationship models, where you could choose who to trust on what subjects (also in a cascading manner [again, like CSS rules]).
So I could perhaps choose "Jon Steward" as my basis, extend with some scientists that i know, and add an overlay of what a friend thinks about the politics in his country, to form my view of Wikipedia.
Now this may sound like the reality distortion of Fox. But in reality, you will not change what someone thinks, when he does not trust you. And my method is a software model of this. :)
And there really are things, where two completely opposite views are rightfully true for both people. Nobody has the right to censor or dominate those views.
And, hell, why not. My philosophy is, that everybody can think whatever he likes to think. As long as he does not hurt me (directly or indirectly [eg. by hurting friends]). No matter how crazy he is. Wouldn't I be the oppressor for not allowing him to think that way? If he's all by himself... so what? Let him be, if he's happy that way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is "Wiki" a trademark?
No.
Is "Encyclopedia" a trademark?
No.
Is Wikipedia a trademark?
Yes.
Re:Open-minded folks at Wikipedia? (Score:4, Informative)
Add to that the fact that you have to show some form of competition (i.e. the potential for tricking people into using a product not affiliated with the trademark holder) by using said trademark.
I can use the trademarked term "Microsoft Windows" in any way I want, as long as I am not convincing people to use my product because it is Microsoft's by associating myself with their trademark.
For example, a website called mswindowssucks.com which promotes the downloading and installing Linux is not infringing on the trademark. However, a website called mswindowsrocks.com that sells "MS Windows" for $9.99 and gives you a copy of Linux re-branded to look like Windows would definitely be infringing.
Then you have borderline cases, like Lindows, which was similar enough to be confused with windows by uniformed users. They either lost outright settled, I don't remember which, but they didn't get to use the term Lindows any more.
All this is fine and dandy, except if you can show a trademark wasn't vigorously defended at every turn then the trademark gets nullified. That's a HUGE risk, so companies with a trademark must sue at the drop of a hat, even if they themselves might think it is rediculous. It isn't worth losing the trademark down the line.
For an example of what happens when you don't defend your trademark, look at the WWE, formerly the WWF for 20+ years. They lost it to the World Wildlife Fund because they didn't defend it sufficiently. The WWE lost an incredible amount of mindshare and brand awareness because of it. I don't even like pro-wrestling and WWE sounds dumb to me compared to WWF. It's that kind of thing Wikipedia has to defend against. Hopefully though this is just a token defense so they can say they defended it if it comes up again.
What a shame (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wikipedia seemed to be the ultimate spot on the Internet for free thought and the sharing of ideas.
I'd say the sharing of ideas doesn't seem like it has much to do with Wikipedia, it's just trying to explain what everything is for the uninformed. Sharing ideas is for places like YouTube, where people *do* share them...every idea that comes into their head, no matter how inane.
Honestly, after reading TFA, it seems like this is a Flying Spaghetti Monster or Church of the SubGenius kind of case. The whole thing exists to throw a problem into sharp relief...it's not an "Art Project" so much as a method of ar
Re: (Score:2)
After having tried to be a contributor for a while I can tell you they are not. there are some powerful groups with admins and even ARBCOM members in their pockets that rule game to keep subtle but damaging biases in various articles - via the exclusion of information.
"that source isn't credible." - them
"it's a peer reviewed scientific journal!" - us
"my statement stands"
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia's Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wikipedia's Perspective (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
True, I guess. It'd be innocent to think they made the same confusion as me.
EFF Versus Wikipedia?!?! On Slashdot?!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Man oh man, does it get any better than this? I'm gonna go pop some corn...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just as long as there's no danger of wardrobe malfunction...
It does seem like trademark and cybersquatting! (Score:3, Interesting)
With the full understanding that this is for a court to decide, the domain name in this case is too similar. Regardless of any one-line disclaimer about not being affiliated with Wikipedia, it still seems too much like it would be an art website operated by Wikipedia. If you accept that PETA.org should belong to the PETA that puts naked chicks in cages on the street and not the PETA that goes through a lot of barbecue sauce (which a lot of people don't) then you have to accept that this domain name is confusing. A domain like "wikipediasucks.com" would make it clear that it was commentary about wikipedia. A domain like "Wikipediaart" makes it look too much like art affiliated with Wikipedia. Your whole front page would have to be a disclaimer given the average human -- I could see easily misinterpreting the top sentence in the pre-coffee boost phase and deciding that they WERE affiliated.
Re:It does seem like trademark and cybersquatting! (Score:5, Funny)
the PETA that puts naked chicks in cages on the street
WHERE!? Where does this happen and how do I get there!?
Re:It does seem like trademark and cybersquatting! (Score:5, Funny)
Step 2: Head to your local...awe who am I kidding, nobody on
Re: (Score:2)
I think that it's pretty silly. As long as it's clearly put on the front page that it's not associated with Wikipedia, then Wikipedia Art is fine.
Re:It does seem like trademark and cybersquatting! (Score:4, Informative)
What about Best of Youtube" [bestofyoutube.com] Does that step on YouTube's trademark?
No, because it's clearly using the "YouTube" name to refer to the real "YouTube". This is considered fair use.
In the Wikipedia Art situation, the EFF is arguing that they're using the "Wikipedia" name to refer to the real "Wikipedia". However, that's not really clear from the name. "Wikipedia Art" sounds to me like it's actually a sub-site of Wikipedia, rather than a site about Wikipedia. It's a bit ambiguous, and that's the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
There are these things called disclaimers, put up a big disclaimer on the front page (and at the bottom of every other page) saying "we are in no way associated with wikipedia or the wikimedia foundation"
I can't say i had much respect for the higher ups at wikipedia before this, i can say i have almost none now
Fair use is a bit of a stretch. (Score:2, Insightful)
No problem with what they're doing but make it more obvious that this isn't part of Wikipedia.
Wikia (Score:2)
Re:Wikia (Score:5, Informative)
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 [c2.com] . 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: (Score:3, Informative)
Yet the Wikipedia didn't bat an eyelash when Jimbo started Wikia using 'wiki' in the name. Double standard.
Wikipedia didn't invent the term "wiki".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
fair use? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fair use is a term of art in trademark law as well.
Since this is about wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law) [wikipedia.org]
Or if you don't like wikipedia...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1115.html [cornell.edu]
b(4) is the section that is referred to as "fair use" by the Supreme Court in rulings.
Re: (Score:2)
The term "fair use" is used in trademark law as well. But I do somewhat agree with your second point. The name they've chosen does seem to suggest an extension of Wikipedia more than a critique of Wikipedia. The main page of the site plainly explains that they are not connected to Wikipedia, but that doesn't change the implication of the name, which is the only thing the Wikipedia folks are going after.
Defend it or lose it (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoth Wikipedia itself [wikipedia.org]:
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
As I understand it, whether a trademark can be protected is decided on a per-market-segment basis.
Therefore, if Wikimedia don't defend their trademark in this case, then in future they run the risk that they won't be able to defend it against other art projects. I don't see how this is a particularly bad outcome for t
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, whether a trademark can be protected is decided on a per-market-segment basis.
That's fine if there are two well defined market segments (say, minced cow products vs. tartan kilts) but it didn't exactly keep the lawyers hungry in Apple Corp vs. Apple Computer :-)
Therefore, if Wikimedia don't defend their trademark in this case, then in future they run the risk that they won't be able to defend it against other art projects.
Wikipedia has stuff about art [wikipedia.org].
Even if this ends up in a ruling that "Wikipedia Art" was OK because it was the name of a specific work of art rather than an online information resource, Wikipedia will have defended their trademark and drawn their line in the sand.
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't get is why they should care in the slightest if their trademark becomes genericized. They don't stand to loose a profit like Xerox would, they are a nonprofit. Keeping their website recognizable is worthless if they are recognized primarily for being dicks.
Weird little gem hidden in TFA (Score:2, Interesting)
History of Wikipedia Art completely erased from Wikipedia. Despite more than 2 dozen edits to the page, there is absolutely no record of its text, anywhere on the site.
Now is it just me or does it sound like there's more to this story than simply protection of a trademark? Why would the Wikipedia people permenantly erase a wiki page that seems legit? There's more evidence of deletions too...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should start a wiki to track deletions from wikipedia..
See Deletionpedia [dbatley.com].
It confirms my expectations: that most deleted articles are not the Secret Truth Suppressed by the Man, but just selfish crap.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably because someone was trying to use Wikipedia as a free webhost for their art project...? Pages that don't have anything to do with Wikipedia's mission - which is creating an encyclopedia, full stop - regularly get deleted.
The page in question wasn't an encyclopedia article, it was a "conceptual art work composed on Wikipedia". Some artist(s) had a clever idea that used Wikipedia's resources, Wikipedia decided that th
One-line explanation of Wikipedia's behavior. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've heard this on Slashdot, but I read otherwise (ironically, on Wikipedia)
Wikipedia: Trademark rights [wikipedia.org]
It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential.
Seems like a letter stating the above would be sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not moral to force the innocent fair-use user to bear the costs involved in protecting you five years down the road.
I hope wikipediaart receives court costs and lawyer's fees.
would (Score:2)
www.definitelynotassociatedwithwikipediadotorginanywayatallhonest.org be ok?
Re: (Score:2)
lawyer up!
Well (Score:2)
Although I don't necessarily agree with Wikimedia's heavy-handedness here, the "wikipediaart" project seems like some weird attempt do use Wikipedia to do something which is not what Wikipedia is for. It is not a commentary on Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia doesn't exist so it can be used as a person's playground or for their pet projects. The "project" itself existed only as a Wikipedia page in essence, and was some sort of attempt at self-referential art from what I can gather - thus being inadmissible for i
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia DOES exist so it can be used as a person's playground and for their pet projects. It's just that none of the people behind wikipediaart are that person.
Wikipedia Review? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wikipedia Review? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Wikipedia Review? (Score:4, Informative)
Mozilla thinks disagrees with EFF's stance (Score:5, Interesting)
Mozilla thinks the same way as Wikimedia and obviously disagrees with EFF.
From the official Mozilla/Firefox Trademark Policy [mozilla.org]
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.
no trademark or cybersquatting issue here (Score:2)
What ever the legalities at issue her, it is patently obvious that the owners of wikipediaart.org are trying to piggyback on the reputation of Wikipedia. They did seem to have previously host their art site directly on Wikipedia itself. Perhaps the cybersquatting issue is a little retaliation.
Trademark issues seen before (Score:2)
Debian has encountered trademark concerns, before: Iceweasel [wikipedia.org]. It's a tale worth reading, if you're interested.
EFF wrong on two counts. (Score:2)
The EFF has it wrong on two counts:
Re: (Score:2)
It is a deceit (Score:2)
The domain name is only one thing, perhaps the least deceitful aspect. I did actually visit http://wikipediaart.org/ [wikipediaart.org] and then http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page [wikipediaart.org] and was very surprised to find it describes and refers to itself as "Wikipedia Art". There is a disclaimer "This web site documents a performance art work that promotes a critical view of Wikipedia. It is not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way." I'm English and reasonably literate and I remain uncertain what that is supposed
Re: (Score:2)
pompous blowhards having a tantrum
In other words, "artists".
Re: (Score:2)
it's pretty clear legally (Score:2)
If people can reasonably expect "wikipediaart.org" to be a site run by the same people as Wikipedia and concerned with art, then it's a trademark violation (it seems to me that it is).
Furthermore, Wikipedia has no choice in the matter: if it could conceivably be a trademark violation, they must get active against it.
Summary is a Red Herring (Score:2)
The submitter presents the question as:
"Can a noncommercial website use the trademark of the entity it critiques in its domain name? "
Now let's think of a REALLY EASY past example: verizonsucks.com, etc. Here we had the trademark owner asserting "brand confusion" which was laughable, except for the hoards of lawyers willing to outspend the defendant.
Now let's consider if that scenario applies here... this is a tough one, give me a minute.... NOPE. Not even close. The submitter editorializes and presents a f
ZOMG FAIR USE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipediasucks.com is nothing one would confuse with Wikipedia.
Wikipediaart.com, however, sounds like an official Wikipedia for art.
Domains can also be trademarks. Them's the breaks. Get over it.
"Permit and Proceed" (Score:2)
Trademark needs to be protected by preventing unauthorized use of it.
But there are two ways of
- disallow/litigate
- authorize/license
Wikipedia choose the nasty way.
Linden Labs used the nice way.
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/31/0216258&from=rss [slashdot.org]
Confusion... (Score:2)
Personally, I think the domain is way too confusing..
You have Microsoft, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel..
Now you have Wikipedia, Wikipedia Art...
What's the difference?
Trademark dilution. . . (Score:2)
IANAL, but from what I've read about trademark law, if you don't protect your trademark, you lose it (or at least, your ability to protect it gets significantly restricted). As the parent says, the domain name wikipediaart.org is confusing and implies to users that the site is in some way affiliated with or part of wikipedia. Even were that not the case, it's using the trademark right there in the domain name. I'm all for allowing people to have 'fair use' of a trademark when discussing a product, company,
There's no fair use in trademarks (Score:2)
Trademarks aren't data or information. They're a name, and names are very important in human society. Moreover, names and trademarks do not infringe anyone's rights in the way that proprietary software does. I see no problem with a trademark holder telling you that you cannot use their name in an infringing way. It's not right for someone to go around using the name "Red Hat" or a derivative. If Wikimedia doesn't want their trademark infringed, they should have that right. Nothing stops you from using
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean there's no fair use in trademarks? I agree that when it comes to naming your website, company, etc, there's no fair use. But there is fair use with respect to actual discussions about the trademarked company, organization, website, product, service, etc. Heck, /. article summaries all the time, by necessity, have to use trademarks like Microsoft, Apple, Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, etc in order to refer to the company or product which is being discussed in the article.
So, YES there is fair use
Wrong, Wronger, Wrongest (Score:3, Insightful)
'Moreover, even if US trademark laws somehow reached this noncommercial activity, the artists' use of the mark is an obvious fair use.'
Wikipedia is not non-commercial, it's non-profit (from their pages: "a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity").
Both non-profit and non-commercial entities can hold trade marks. Both can be held in violation of same.
Since they use the exact trade mark (again, from their pages: "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.") rather than a generic derivative of it (ie. Wikiart) without obtaining permission, they are in violation. Specifically, by appearing as though they might be part of Wikipedia (disclaimers may follow but do not prevent prima facie assumption) Wikipedia's mark is subject to potential dilution. The law serves to protect against that specifically.
I blame Wikipediaart for the problem, even if it's due to ignorance. I doubt Wikipedia/Wikimedia wants to be seen doing this. However, they have to. Not to do so leaves them open to loss of protection should someone else do the same. Yes, it applies to trade mark as well as copyright. We've had the discussion before and references to the laws provided. A summary article with references can be found at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm [harvard.edu]
Fair use does apply to trademark are well as copyright. However, it requires "non-imitative" use (http://www.publaw.com/fairusetrade.html ). The look and feel of Wikipediaart is such that it could be dropped whole into Wikipedia and look like it belongs. It is far too imitative. Furthermore, the use of material previously on Wikipedia can lead to "confusion", the point other than "dilution" that the protection exists for.
I'm disappointed in the EFF attorney. Assertions are being tossed about that are clearly contradicted by the law. I hope the organization doesn't hold the same opinions.
Of course it's not Fair Use (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
the Ubuntu people are worse (Score:2)
you may use the Trademarks [ubuntu.com] in association with the software product provided:
* the changes are minimal and unsubstantial, as described above
* there is no comme
Re:Wikipedia Is Rotten (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, to be clear, Wikipedia is not the same as the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation owns the trademark and the servers but has essentially nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the English Wikipedia or any of the other Wikipedias or associated projects.
Much of what you have said is inaccurate or missing context. The primary reasons that Wikipedia looks like such a drama magnet is that a) there's a high degree of transparency so the normal internal jockeying and juvenile behavior is there for all to see b) many people have sincere ideas about what the project should do. People can legitimately and strongly disagree. Wikipedia does have some very serious problems, but one shouldn't overestimate them. The vast majority of editors get along just fine every day just plugging along. I suspect you'd find if you did a survey that even many admins aren't aware of the historical major scandals and drama sources such as the Essjay scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy [wikipedia.org])
Now, in regard to deletionism, I'm a user who has been labeled as a "hyperinclusionist" on at least one occasion and I think you are being unfair. Deletionism has legitimate arguments behind it. First, having many articles makes it difficult to navigate. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John [wikipedia.org] or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith [wikipedia.org] and then imagine how worse those pages would be if we included every little person. Second, Wikipedia is not intended as a free webhost. Those exist all over the internet. So even a die-hard inclusionist must agree that some inclusion criteria are necessary. Third, the more content we have (especially of obscure topics that few people care about or edit) the more potential for vandalism or insertion of libelous content which is really not good.
I don't have any strong opinion on the issue about the trademark in question (I haven't had time to look at the matter in great detail) but to connect this to alleged problems at Wikipedia is simply not helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
The Wikipedia community has a number of problems, but I think inclusionism is far more a problem than deletionism for a project that hopes to be an encyclopedia.
Any community has and needs a culture - cultures like academia that aim to do something in particular have this problem more than most - establishing norms and then ensuring that they're passed down to entrants before they begin to function as full members or prominent members is a problem as old as civilisation. Deletionism is just staying on-topic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)