[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
40 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Kelly Kay
A few moments ago we posted this to the Wikimedia Foundation Blog, it is
self explanatory.

Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
suit<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf>
in
San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that
Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the
creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in
response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers. Over the summer,
in response to requests generated by our volunteers, the Wikimedia
community conducted a lengthy Request For
Comment<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Travel_Guide> (RFC)
process to facilitate public debate and discussion regarding the benefits
and challenges of creating a new, Wikimedia Foundation-hosted travel guide
project. The community extended the RFC at the Wikimedia Foundation Board’s
request to allow for greater community input, and to encourage input from
Internet Brands. Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
of this new project.

Unfortunately, Internet Brands (owner of the travel website Wikitravel) has
decided to disrupt this process by engaging in litigation against two
Wikitravel volunteers who are also Wikimedia community members. On August
29, Internet Brands sued two volunteer administrators, one based in Los
Angeles and one in Canada, asserting a variety of claims. The intent of the
action is clear – intimidate other community volunteers from exercising
their rights to freely discuss the establishment of a new community focused
on the creation of a new, not-for-profit travel guide under the Creative
Commons licenses.

While the suit filed by Internet Brands does not directly name the
Wikimedia Foundation as a defendant, we believe that we are the real
target. We feel our only recourse is to file this suit in order to get
everything on the table and deal head on with Internet Brand’s actions over
the past few months in trying to impede the creation of this new travel
project.

Our community and potential new community members are key to the success of
all of our projects. We will steadfastly and proudly defend our community’s
right to free speech, and we will support these volunteer community members
in their legal defense. We do not feel it is appropriate for Internet
Brands, a large corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets,
to seek to intimidate two individuals.

This new, proposed project would allow all travel content to be freely used
and disseminated by anyone for any purpose as long as the content is given
proper attribution and is offered with the same free-to-use license.
Internet Brands appears to be attempting to thwart the creation of a new,
non-commercial travel wiki in a misguided effort to protect its for-profit
Wikitravel site.

The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance and the Wikimedia Foundation
will not sit idly by and allow a commercial actor like Internet Brands to
engage in threats, intimidation and litigation to prevent the organic
expression of community interest in favor of a new travel project, one that
is not driven by commercial interests.

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people
around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
license <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content> or in the public
domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. We are devoted to
creating and nurturing free knowledge projects supported by volunteers. Our
actions today represent the full stride of our commitment to protect the
Wikimedia movement against the efforts of for-profit entities like Internet
Brands to prevent communities and volunteers from making their own
decisions about where and how freely-usable content may be shared.

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory-relief-in-response-to-legal-threats-from-internet-brands/

Kelly Kay, Deputy General Counsel

--
Kelly Kay
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

*
<http://walk.avonfoundation.org/site/TR?px=6370274&pg=personal&fr_id=2173&s_src=BF_emailbadge>This
message might have confidential or legally privileged information in it. If
you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let us
know about the mistake. For legalreasons, I may only serve as an attorney
for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or
serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in
their individual capacity.*
<http://walk.avonfoundation.org/site/TR?px=6370274&pg=personal&fr_id=2173&s_src=BF_emailbadge>

_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

James Alexander-4
Forwarding to Wikimedia-l since it does not appear to have come over
naturally.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kelly Kay <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:46 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory
Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
To: [hidden email]


A few moments ago we posted this to the Wikimedia Foundation Blog, it is
self explanatory.

Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
suit<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf>
in
San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that
Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the
creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in
response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers. Over the summer,
in response to requests generated by our volunteers, the Wikimedia
community conducted a lengthy Request For
Comment<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Travel_Guide> (RFC)
process to facilitate public debate and discussion regarding the benefits
and challenges of creating a new, Wikimedia Foundation-hosted travel guide
project. The community extended the RFC at the Wikimedia Foundation Board’s
request to allow for greater community input, and to encourage input from
Internet Brands. Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
of this new project.

Unfortunately, Internet Brands (owner of the travel website Wikitravel) has
decided to disrupt this process by engaging in litigation against two
Wikitravel volunteers who are also Wikimedia community members. On August
29, Internet Brands sued two volunteer administrators, one based in Los
Angeles and one in Canada, asserting a variety of claims. The intent of the
action is clear – intimidate other community volunteers from exercising
their rights to freely discuss the establishment of a new community focused
on the creation of a new, not-for-profit travel guide under the Creative
Commons licenses.

While the suit filed by Internet Brands does not directly name the
Wikimedia Foundation as a defendant, we believe that we are the real
target. We feel our only recourse is to file this suit in order to get
everything on the table and deal head on with Internet Brand’s actions over
the past few months in trying to impede the creation of this new travel
project.

Our community and potential new community members are key to the success of
all of our projects. We will steadfastly and proudly defend our community’s
right to free speech, and we will support these volunteer community members
in their legal defense. We do not feel it is appropriate for Internet
Brands, a large corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets,
to seek to intimidate two individuals.

This new, proposed project would allow all travel content to be freely used
and disseminated by anyone for any purpose as long as the content is given
proper attribution and is offered with the same free-to-use license.
Internet Brands appears to be attempting to thwart the creation of a new,
non-commercial travel wiki in a misguided effort to protect its for-profit
Wikitravel site.

The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance and the Wikimedia Foundation
will not sit idly by and allow a commercial actor like Internet Brands to
engage in threats, intimidation and litigation to prevent the organic
expression of community interest in favor of a new travel project, one that
is not driven by commercial interests.

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people
around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
license <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content> or in the public
domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. We are devoted to
creating and nurturing free knowledge projects supported by volunteers. Our
actions today represent the full stride of our commitment to protect the
Wikimedia movement against the efforts of for-profit entities like Internet
Brands to prevent communities and volunteers from making their own
decisions about where and how freely-usable content may be shared.

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory-relief-in-response-to-legal-threats-from-internet-brands/

Kelly Kay, Deputy General Counsel

--
Kelly Kay
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

*
<http://walk.avonfoundation.org/site/TR?px=6370274&pg=personal&fr_id=2173&s_src=BF_emailbadge>This
message might have confidential or legally privileged information in it. If
you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let us
know about the mistake. For legalreasons, I may only serve as an attorney
for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or
serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in
their individual capacity.*

<http://walk.avonfoundation.org/site/TR?px=6370274&pg=personal&fr_id=2173&s_src=BF_emailbadge>


_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Max Harmony
In reply to this post by Kelly Kay
Would it be inappropriate for community members to express their
displeasure with the actions of Internet Brands, perhaps by mass or
organised boycott? I expect Wikimedia Foundation itself cannot
encourage any sort of action, but can the actions of editors have
negative repercussions on the Foundation (beyond the obvious)?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Kim Bruning
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:09:29AM +0000, Max Harmony wrote:
> Would it be inappropriate for community members to express their
> displeasure with the actions of Internet Brands, perhaps by mass or
> organised boycott?

The latter is pretty much already happening by default.

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by James Alexander-4
> Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
> desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
> supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
> of this new project.

Is this a valid announcement from the WMF board before the official
decision?
By the way there's not been any proper closure/conclusion to the RfC,
that's been left too the board too.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Thehelpfulone
On 6 Sep 2012, at 07:38, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
>> desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
>> supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
>> of this new project.
>
> Is this a valid announcement from the WMF board before the official decision?
> By the way there's not been any proper closure/conclusion to the RfC, that's been left too the board too.

Nemo is correct in this matter, whilst the RFC has been closed to discussion, there has not been an official outcome. I believe it was intended that the Board would decide and make a statement/resolution to state their findings.

Thehelpfulone
Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

jmh649
In reply to this post by Kelly Kay
The community has unofficially summarized the RfC here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide#Summary_of_arguments
But yes the final summary and decision was to be left to the WMF.

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Thehelpfulone
On 6 September 2012 08:18, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The community has unofficially summarized the RfC here
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide#Summary_of_arguments
> But yes the final summary and decision was to be left to the WMF.
>
>
Just to follow up on this, the Board has now published a statement on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide&diff=4099910&oldid=4099573#Board_statement
.

--
Thehelpfulone
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Kelly Kay
On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
> suit<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf>
> in
> San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that
> Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the
> creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in
> response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers.


I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking
the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Thomas Morton
In reply to this post by Kelly Kay
Just to note:

Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel admins
having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
Wiki Travel content.

It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
certainly be an "aha" moment).

If we can't defend the right to fork publicly, then we are hypocrites.

Tom

On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A few moments ago we posted this to the Wikimedia Foundation Blog, it is
> self explanatory.
>
> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a suit<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf> in
> San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that
> Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the
> creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in
> response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers. Over the summer,
> in response to requests generated by our volunteers, the Wikimedia
> community conducted a lengthy Request For Comment<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Travel_Guide> (RFC)
> process to facilitate public debate and discussion regarding the benefits
> and challenges of creating a new, Wikimedia Foundation-hosted travel guide
> project. The community extended the RFC at the Wikimedia Foundation Board’s
> request to allow for greater community input, and to encourage input from
> Internet Brands. Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
> desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
> supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
> of this new project.
>
> Unfortunately, Internet Brands (owner of the travel website Wikitravel)
> has decided to disrupt this process by engaging in litigation against two
> Wikitravel volunteers who are also Wikimedia community members. On August
> 29, Internet Brands sued two volunteer administrators, one based in Los
> Angeles and one in Canada, asserting a variety of claims. The intent of the
> action is clear – intimidate other community volunteers from exercising
> their rights to freely discuss the establishment of a new community focused
> on the creation of a new, not-for-profit travel guide under the Creative
> Commons licenses.
>
> While the suit filed by Internet Brands does not directly name the
> Wikimedia Foundation as a defendant, we believe that we are the real
> target. We feel our only recourse is to file this suit in order to get
> everything on the table and deal head on with Internet Brand’s actions over
> the past few months in trying to impede the creation of this new travel
> project.
>
> Our community and potential new community members are key to the success
> of all of our projects. We will steadfastly and proudly defend our
> community’s right to free speech, and we will support these volunteer
> community members in their legal defense. We do not feel it is appropriate
> for Internet Brands, a large corporation with hundreds of millions of
> dollars in assets, to seek to intimidate two individuals.
>
> This new, proposed project would allow all travel content to be freely
> used and disseminated by anyone for any purpose as long as the content is
> given proper attribution and is offered with the same free-to-use license.
> Internet Brands appears to be attempting to thwart the creation of a new,
> non-commercial travel wiki in a misguided effort to protect its for-profit
> Wikitravel site.
>
> The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance and the Wikimedia Foundation
> will not sit idly by and allow a commercial actor like Internet Brands to
> engage in threats, intimidation and litigation to prevent the organic
> expression of community interest in favor of a new travel project, one that
> is not driven by commercial interests.
>
> The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people
> around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
> license <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content> or in the public
> domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. We are devoted to
> creating and nurturing free knowledge projects supported by volunteers. Our
> actions today represent the full stride of our commitment to protect the
> Wikimedia movement against the efforts of for-profit entities like Internet
> Brands to prevent communities and volunteers from making their own
> decisions about where and how freely-usable content may be shared.
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory-relief-in-response-to-legal-threats-from-internet-brands/
>
> Kelly Kay, Deputy General Counsel
>
> --
> Kelly Kay
> Deputy General Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> *
> <http://walk.avonfoundation.org/site/TR?px=6370274&pg=personal&fr_id=2173&s_src=BF_emailbadge>This
> message might have confidential or legally privileged information in it. If
> you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let us
> know about the mistake. For legalreasons, I may only serve as an attorney
> for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or
> serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in
> their individual capacity.*
>
> <http://walk.avonfoundation.org/site/TR?px=6370274&pg=personal&fr_id=2173&s_src=BF_emailbadge>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

David Gerard-2
On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel admins
> having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
> Wiki Travel content.
> It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
> It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> certainly be an "aha" moment).


It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
it, before asserting bad faith?

The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
they're soft-pedaling this.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Thomas Morton
Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release.

So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is
basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement
dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.

Tom

On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> > mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
> admins
> > having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
> > Wiki Travel content.
> > It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
> > It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> > underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> > approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> > certainly be an "aha" moment).
>
>
> It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
> it, before asserting bad faith?
>
> The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
> Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
> they're soft-pedaling this.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Richard Symonds-3
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Makes interesting reading. Is there anywhere that we can read the IB vs
"the volunteers" documents? Or are they not publicly viewable?

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*



On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> > mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
> admins
> > having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
> > Wiki Travel content.
> > It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
> > It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> > underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> > approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> > certainly be an "aha" moment).
>
>
> It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
> it, before asserting bad faith?
>
> The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
> Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
> they're soft-pedaling this.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Deryck Chan-2
In reply to this post by Thomas Morton
In contrast to Tom's opinion, I believe that WMF has done the right thing -
write the blog post in a way so as to create the biggest PR impact within
the limits of factual accuracy; and link to the PDF and discussions for the
sake of transparency.

On 6 September 2012 15:12, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release.
>
> So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is
> basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement
> dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.
>
> Tom
>
> On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> > > mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
> > admins
> > > having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded
> with
> > > Wiki Travel content.
> > > It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public
> statements.
> > > It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> > > underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> > > approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> > > certainly be an "aha" moment).
> >
> >
> > It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
> > it, before asserting bad faith?
> >
> > The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
> > Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
> > they're soft-pedaling this.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Nathan Awrich
The Wikitravel site seems to be declining in a hurry, even from what
was evidently a sad state just several months ago. The main remaining
administrator, an employee who goes by IBobi (IB as in Internet
Brands), has limited his actions almost exclusively to arguing with
other community members and censoring any mention of Wikimedia or
Wikivoyage. He has even resorted to removing criticism of Internet
Brands or its Wikitravel management, whether or not that criticism
mentions forking directly or indirectly, calling it either "vandalism"
or claiming to be editing others comments "to conform with policy."

Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary
barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content
rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Thomas Dalton
On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, "Nathan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
> there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
> entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
> Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary
> barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content
> rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.

Even if they have lost safe harbor protections, is there anything illegal
about the content? What do they need Section 230 protection from?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Nathan Awrich
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, "Nathan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
>> there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
>> entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
>> Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary
>> barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content
>> rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.
>
> Even if they have lost safe harbor protections, is there anything illegal
> about the content? What do they need Section 230 protection from?

Maybe not if you're referring to a current snapshot of the project,
but of course that may not always be the case. Even the failure to
effectively address vandalism seems like it could put the organization
at risk, if they've lost the protection afforded to service providers.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
>> suit<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf>

> I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking
> the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.


Internet Brands have themselves put up their suit against James and Ryan:

http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf

It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_William_Ryan_Holliday.pdf

Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.


My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-forking-under-cc-by-sa/


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

theo10011
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
> >> suit<
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf
> >
>
> > I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking
> > the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.
>
>
> Internet Brands have themselves put up their suit against James and Ryan:
>
>
> http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf
>
> It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
>
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_William_Ryan_Holliday.pdf
>
> Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
>
>
> My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
> attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
>
>
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-forking-under-cc-by-sa/
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

IB's primary complaints stems from alleging Trademark infringement, and
unfair practices originating from such an infringement along with Civil
conspiracy.

I'm not sure why its alleging Trademark infringement against a volunteer,
perhaps through James' affiliation with Wikimedia Canada - which they might
consider to be an extension of WMF, and it should be pointed out and
clarified at some point. James' wouldn't be the legal owner of the fork
either way. In order, for it to have any basis, it would have to be
directed to the owner of the domain name, which would be WMF. But that's a
much harder battle, so this seems like intimidation.

The matter of forking and licensing issue aside, the issue of trademark
infringement seems separate and straightforward. The complaint related to
the Lanham Act, etc.-

43. Defendants’ unauthorized use of a mark confusingly similar to
Internet Brands’ Wikitravel trade name and trademarks for an identical and
related
website is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the
source,
business affiliation, connection or association of Defendants and their
website.

It would be a tall order to make that claim against WMF. It might even come
down to the "Wiki-" prefix.

Looking at the recent history of Wiki- prefixes (Wikileaks come to mind),
in addition to it making its way to the general lexicon. Is there a
sustainable long-term legal strategy when it comes to other party alleging
trademark or ownership of a "Wiki-" related domain in future? It hasn't
required much legal attention up till now but this seems to crop up year
after year.

Regards
Theo

P.S. Good Luck James. I'm sure you've been told already, this
complaint doesn't have much merit.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

Richard Symonds-3
Good luck to everyone concerned from the UK Chapter! James in particular
has been doing some very interesting things in the UK recently, which we're
very grateful for.

As to the trademark infringement, I think it stems not from "Wikivoyage",
but instead from James' alleged use of the phrase "Wiki Travel Guide"...

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*



On 7 September 2012 14:39, Theo10011 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
> > >> suit<
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf
> > >
> >
> > > I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking
> > > the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.
> >
> >
> > Internet Brands have themselves put up their suit against James and Ryan:
> >
> >
> >
> http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf
> >
> > It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
> >
> >
> >
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_William_Ryan_Holliday.pdf
> >
> > Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
> >
> >
> > My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
> > attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
> >
> >
> >
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-forking-under-cc-by-sa/
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
>
> IB's primary complaints stems from alleging Trademark infringement, and
> unfair practices originating from such an infringement along with Civil
> conspiracy.
>
> I'm not sure why its alleging Trademark infringement against a volunteer,
> perhaps through James' affiliation with Wikimedia Canada - which they might
> consider to be an extension of WMF, and it should be pointed out and
> clarified at some point. James' wouldn't be the legal owner of the fork
> either way. In order, for it to have any basis, it would have to be
> directed to the owner of the domain name, which would be WMF. But that's a
> much harder battle, so this seems like intimidation.
>
> The matter of forking and licensing issue aside, the issue of trademark
> infringement seems separate and straightforward. The complaint related to
> the Lanham Act, etc.-
>
> 43. Defendants’ unauthorized use of a mark confusingly similar to
> Internet Brands’ Wikitravel trade name and trademarks for an identical and
> related
> website is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the
> source,
> business affiliation, connection or association of Defendants and their
> website.
>
> It would be a tall order to make that claim against WMF. It might even come
> down to the "Wiki-" prefix.
>
> Looking at the recent history of Wiki- prefixes (Wikileaks come to mind),
> in addition to it making its way to the general lexicon. Is there a
> sustainable long-term legal strategy when it comes to other party alleging
> trademark or ownership of a "Wiki-" related domain in future? It hasn't
> required much legal attention up till now but this seems to crop up year
> after year.
>
> Regards
> Theo
>
> P.S. Good Luck James. I'm sure you've been told already, this
> complaint doesn't have much merit.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
12