Wikipedia Threatens Artists for Fair Use

[HardOCP News]

This ought to be interesting, get this…Wikipedia shut down an entry dedicated to “art and Wikipedia.” The authors of the Wikipedia page thought "no big deal" and started their own website. The problem is, they are calling it Wikipedia Art. That’s when things got all sue-y.

Yep, they used the term “wikipedia” in their domain name. “Wikipedia” is a trademark owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. And now 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.

 

[qdemn7]

Just shows that those who often claimed the mantle of the oppressed turn into an oppressor when they get some power in their hands. Shame on you Wikipedia.

 

[stiltner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same "organization" that was pretty well begging for donation type funding?

A non-profit....attacking...non profits....for....profits? Cause lets face it, the only reason to sue for I.P. type stuff is because you feel its merit is going to profit you eventually, or to not slander its image, I dunno how the latter would have taken place here, so apparently the former is looking somewhat sensible.

 

[qdemn7]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same "organization" that was pretty well begging for donation type funding?

A non-profit....attacking...non profits....for....profits? Cause lets face it, the only reason to sue for I.P. type stuff is because you feel its merit is going to profit you eventually, or to not slander its image, I dunno how the latter would have taken place here, so apparently the former is looking somewhat sensible.

Amazing how ethics can change when money in introduced into the picture, isn't it?

 

[EXreaction]

How is this not a trademark issue?

I suppose I could just go and grab something like hardocp2.com then and you guys would be just fine and dandy with it?

 

[uviuar2]

Im not going to lie, as a common layperson if I were to see a link or a google search result to wikipeidaart.org, I would immediately assume it belonged to and was part of wikipedia.org. The name indicates that the site is a spinoff of the original, with some designation towards "art" as the focus. Regardless, I dont think wikipedia should be suing here, but rather asking, and just saying "screw it" and let them keep the domain since it looks ultimately to be mutually beneficial.

Now if the site name was possessive, like "wikipedias-art.org" that would indicate to me that the site is 3rd party.

 

[djBon2112]

Now if the site name was possessive, like "wikipedias-art.org" that would indicate to me that the site is 3rd party.

What? For me that implies the exact opposite: possessive means it's in possession of the party. wikipedia-art.org (or wikipediaart.org) sounds like a 3rd party site.

And, yes, shame on you Wikipedia.

 

[Azhar]

How is this not a trademark issue?

I suppose I could just go and grab something like hardocp2.com then and you guys would be just fine and dandy with it?

Kyle and Steve are big guys. I think they'll forgo the pleasure of hiring lawyers and just beat you to a bloody pulp ;-)

I'm kidding lol

 

[MavericK]

Im not going to lie, as a common layperson if I were to see a link or a google search result to wikipeidaart.org, I would immediately assume it belonged to and was part of wikipedia.org.

Exactly. It's like Google, with Google Earth and Google Maps, or basically just Google <insert noun here>. If you created a site called "Google Games" or something, don't you think you would get sued by Google? And rightfully so.

 

[S-B]

How is this not a trademark issue?

I suppose I could just go and grab something like hardocp2.com then and you guys would be just fine and dandy with it?

Depends. Is hardocp2 trying to directly compete with HardOCP? Is hardocp2 trying to make a profit using the HardOCP name?

In this case, no. Therefore, it constitutes fair use under US copyright law. I am in agreement with their use of the domain and name as such, however, the whole "Wikipedia Art" entry is stupid. I agree with most of the other editors who voted to delete the article, as it is a project that SHOULD be hosted elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a staging ground for original research and collaborative art.

If you want to do collaborative art, there is wikimedia.org, but the better way to do it would be through your own project wiki.