TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) Undid revision 293084021 by 66.162.120.40 see talk |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Notability|date=May 2009}} |
{{Notability|date=May 2009}} |
||
{{Refimprove|date=May 2009}} |
{{Refimprove|date=May 2009}} |
||
[[Image:Wikipedia Art.png|thumb|The logo that accompanied the original Wikipedia Art page]] |
|||
The '''Wikipedia Art controversy''' is a [[domain name]] ownership dispute between the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and artist [[Scott Kildall]] over the domain name [http://wikipediaart.org wikipediaart.org]. The domain was registered to Kildall on 9 September 2008 and was used in February 2009 to promote a performance art project called Wikipedia Art. |
The '''Wikipedia Art controversy''' is a [[domain name]] ownership dispute between the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and artist [[Scott Kildall]] over the domain name [http://wikipediaart.org wikipediaart.org]. The domain was registered to Kildall on 9 September 2008 and was used in February 2009 to promote a performance art project called Wikipedia Art. |
Revision as of 13:08, 29 May 2009
The Wikipedia Art controversy is a domain name ownership dispute between the Wikimedia Foundation and artist Scott Kildall over the domain name wikipediaart.org. The domain was registered to Kildall on 9 September 2008 and was used in February 2009 to promote a performance art project called Wikipedia Art.
Kildall, working with artist Nathaniel Stern, created a Wikipedia article entitled "Wikipedia Art", which was intended to serve as a space for collaborative performance art. The article was created on 14 February 2009 and deleted 15 hours later due to it being a nonencyclopedic entry.[1]
According to Ars Technica, artist Scott Kildall received a letter on the 23 March 2009, from Douglas Isenberg, counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, requesting "that the wikipediaart.org domain be transferred to Wikimedia.[2] " Kildall and Stern subsequently sought counsel from James Martin, who responded to Mr. Isenberg, saying that "We have concluded that my client has not violated any of Wikimedia's legal rights."
Paul Alan Levy from Public Citizen has agreed to represent Kildall and Stern in the case that Wikipedia Art goes to litigation. He has stated that, "I'm sad to see that Wikipedia did this."[3] Mike Godwin, attorney for Wikimedia, posted a note to the Wikimedia Foundation List stating that "No litigation was threatened or commenced."[4] However, Wikimedia has not withdrawn its original letter so that the status remains in legal limbo.[3]
Multiple commentators, including Ars Technica[2] and the Electronic Frontier Foundation[5] have characterized the dispute as one of fair use over the use of trademarks in domain names, supporting Wikipedia Art's argument that its use of the Wikipedia trademark in a noncommercial referential way is protected by fair use.
Footnotes
- ^ Wikipedia Art. "Wikipedia Art". Wikipedia Art. Retrieved 2009-05-09.
- ^ a b Foresman, Chris (2009-04-23). "Wikipedia Art dispute pits artists against Wikimedia Foundation". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2009-05-09.
- ^ a b "MediaPost Publications Wikipediaart.org Draws Ire Of Namesake Site 04/27/2009". Mediapost.com. 2009-04-27. Retrieved 2009-05-09.
- ^ "[Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation". Lists.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2009-05-09.
- ^ "Wikipedia Threatens Artists for Fair Use | Electronic Frontier Foundation". Eff.org. 2009-04-23. Retrieved 2009-05-09.
References
- What is Wikipedia Art,Jon Coffelt, TheWhole9, Los Angeles, CA (14 February 2009)
- Wikipedia Foundation vs. Wikpedia Art: What's Really Going On? - Digital Journal (26 April 2009)
- Deconstructing Wikipedia, Mary Schumacher, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Apr. 30, 2009)
- Conceptual artist Scott Kildall is a troll, says Wikipedia founder, Micaela Van Zwoll Examiner.com (May 3, 2009)
- Wikipedia Art: Vandalism or Performance Art?, Simon Owens, Media Shift, PBS.org (13 May, 2009)