Wikimedia Foundation vs Wikipedia Art (wikipediaart.org)

I don't believe Seth's assertion that a trademark cannot be infringed by a non-commercial entity is correct. I think the core idea of infringement is causing confusing that captures the trademark holders goodwill or passing off. It is this misrepresentation that matters, whether commercial or not. Imagine what would happen if someone created Mickey and Donald's Disney Charities that had nothing to do with Disney or worse still had a charitable cause that Disney might not approve of.

Any experts around?

That wasn't Seth's assertion, he was quoting Corynne McSherry, Staff Attorney for the EFF specializing in intellectual property and contract issues (whom you slightly misquoted, saying "non-commercial entity" instead of "noncommercial site"). So there's your "expert".

My perusal of trademark law suggests that it's not *quite* as cut and dry as that (see, for example, http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/...ct-becomes-law/), and there's some dispute as to what exactly "noncommercial use" means, but that the WMF would be facing quite an uphill battle if they were stupid enough to take this to court.

Still no experts around, huh?

You get what you pay for, Glass. Anthony did some hunting and clarification work, and your response comes off as a bit rude. (I don't know if you intended it that way, or not.)

Actually I was a bit mift at not one, but two disinctions wthout difference and a link to a good resource. Despite Web 2.0 "culture" links without a argument or elaboration does not incorporate the contents to the linkers credit. I guess I meant to be "rude" but not hurtfully so and to make a point.

You don't consider a lawyer for the EFF specializing in IP law to be an expert?

I don't think you're going to find an expert posting on this topic in this forum, if that's what you're looking for. So, to answer your question, no.

No problem with the rudeness, though since I don't understand what the "point" was, I guess it didn't have its intended effect.

blanked

This is the converse of No Linky, No Thinky (NLNT). NLNT is the inability to comprehend an argument without a link to Wikipedia or other site. Here we have the substitution of an easy link (albeit of good quality) for reasoned elaboration.

I suppose the other question is how important the courts would view the use of a domain name vs other content.

It seemed to me that Godwin was saying as long s you don't use the domain name, then we won't have a problem, but we know that with the right SEO, the domain name itself is not critical to being discoverable as "Wikipedia Art". So I am not convinced that the Wikipedia position actually makes sense.

No Thinky, No Linky?



You're right that I don't comprehend the argument. I didn't even know there was an argument involved.

The link was meant to show just how complicated the situation was.

Not "argument" as in "disagreement" but as in "A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood," "A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence," or "a reason." But your response that crossed my replies here was actually much better.

Thanks, I've blanked it.