>Reading the answers, I deleted the works of Gide from the French Wikisource.
>I am quite disappointed as I asked the very same question on Wikisource on
>December 3rd, 2003, and no one has ever bothered to answer. 2003!!!
>Actually, that's one of my first post on Wikisource and also one of the first
>post on the whole project (the earliest post I could find is on November 24,
It's highly probable that no-one answered because no-one noticed. If
no-one notices such questions in a week, it's likely they won't be seen
>Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada, so
>that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.
Wikisource.ca could probably do this as long as it maintains an arms
length relationship. This could be similar to what Project Gutenberg
did with with certain works in Australia before that country extended
its copyright laws to 70 years. I don't think that this is enough to
have all of Wikisource hosted in Canada.
>As American counsel, I would not dare contradict my French counterparts, but the answer is really simple - we will get sued by someone in France, and would subject the Foundation to the possibility of jurisdiction in France. As our colleagues at Yahoo! Can attest, that is not a good thing. It is not necessarily always in the interests of the mission of the organization to be aggressive at every turn. This is one such example.
Didn't this have to do with the sale of Nazi memorabilia instead of
copyright? Or am I thinking of the wrong case?
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>Furthermore, our *goals* -- neverminding the legal problesm that
>>Jean-Christophe Chazalette wrote about -- our *goals* include a very
>>high degree of reusability. Hosting materials that are subject to
>>copyright everywhere in the world except in the USA is a mistake on the
>>simple grounds that such work would not be redistributable anywhere else.
>>This is why we should take a very very skeptical eye toward the use of
>>"fair use" even in English.
>In counterpoint, Wikipedia is a prime example of the importance of fair
>use as a catalyst for better information and education. To the extent
>that the world is still working out the 'right' way to allow commentary,
>satire, and analysis while protecting author's rights, it is relevant that
>Wikipedia takes advantage of fair use. Changing policy to stop doing so
>would likewise influence those ongoing "fair use standards" debates.
This is an interesting and important strategic point. One can go
overboard when it comes to being squeaky clean. There is always a need
to maintain a certain dynamic and avoiding interpretations of the law
which our adversaries design solely for their own benefit. Many
copyright notices serve only to deter the ignorant.