Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation

Last updated

The Wikimedia Foundation has been involved in several lawsuits. They have won some and lost several others.

Contents

This listing is not meant to be exhaustive, and only includes notable cases.

Outcomes in favor of the plaintiffs

In May 2011, Louis Bacon, a hedge fund manager, obtained a court order in Great Britain, where he owned property, against the Wikimedia Foundation, the Denver Post and WordPress to compel them to reveal the identity of persons who he claimed had anonymously defamed him on Wikipedia and the other two websites. However, legal experts said that the order was probably unenforceable in the United States. [1] [2]

Initially, the Foundation agreed to give the information to Bacon's solicitors, [3] but later asserted that it would cooperate only with a court order in the U.S. It said, "we do not comply with foreign subpoenas absent an immediate threat to life or limb." [1] Automattic, which owns WordPress, said Bacon would need a court order but agreed to remove any defamatory material from its websites. [3]

In January 2019, a court in Germany ruled against the Wikimedia Foundation, prompting it to remove part of the history and the allegedly defamatory content about a professor. The Wikipedia article's content was ruled defamatory because the link supporting its claims was no longer active, a phenomenon known as link rot. [4]

Outcomes in favor of the Wikimedia Foundation

The Wikimedia Foundation ultimately prevailed in a controversy in Germany involving the deceased hacker known as Tron. A German court issued an injunction against the Wikimedia chapter in Germany due to its ownership of the Wikipedia domain. The Foundation intervened and the matter was resolved.[ citation needed ]

In January 2008, Barbara Bauer, a literary agent, sued the Wikimedia Foundation in New Jersey Superior Court for defamation. [5] [6] [7] She claimed that a Wikipedia entry branded her the "dumbest" literary agent. [6] The case was dismissed because of the protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. [7]

Professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller, who felt that he was defamed on Wikipedia, said that he did not sue Wikipedia because he was told that his suit would not prevail, in light of Section 230. [8] He sued the Miami firm from whose computers the edits were made, but later dropped the case. [9]

In 2007, three French nationals sued the Wikimedia Foundation when an article on Wikipedia described them as gay activists. [10] [11] A French court dismissed the defamation and privacy case, ruling that the Foundation was not legally responsible for information in Wikipedia articles. [11] The judge ruled that a 2004 French law limited the Foundation's liability, and found that the content had already been removed. [10] [11] He found that the Foundation was not legally required to check the information on Wikipedia, and that "Web site hosts cannot be liable under civil law because of information stored on them if they do not in fact know of their illicit nature." [11] He did not rule whether the information was defamatory. [10] [11]

In December 2010, Sylvia Scott Gibson, author of Latawnya, the Naughty Horse, Learns to Say "No" to Drugs , sued Wikipedia in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. She took issue with how editors had described her book. [12] Her suit was dismissed on September 18, 2011, with Judge Otis D. Wright II writing, "Plaintiff demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts, the Internet, and the law." [13]

Other alleged defamation

John Seigenthaler, an American writer and journalist, contacted Wikipedia in 2005 after his article was edited to incorrectly state that he had been thought for a brief time to be involved in the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and of Bobby Kennedy. The content was present in the article for four months. [6] [14] Seigenthaler called Wikipedia a "flawed and irresponsible research tool" and criticized the Communications Decency Act's protection of Wikipedia. [6]

The representative for the American Academy of Financial Management, George Mentz, suggested that either phony or incompetent Wikipedia editors were creating legal problems for Wikimedia in May 2013, because of alleged intentional false claims that had been published on Wikipedia. [15]

In 2014, Yank Barry filed a defamation lawsuit against four Wikipedia editors. [16] [17] He withdrew it after about a month.[ when? ] [18]

Sorin Cerin sued the administrators of Romanian Wikipedia in Romanian courts, claiming "patent falsities". [19] The trial ended in 2021; the plaintiff lost the case. [20]

DMCA takedown notices

Texas Instruments sent a DMCA takedown notice to the Wikimedia Foundation because certain cryptographic keys were made public in an article on the Texas Instruments signing key controversy. A Wikipedia editor later filed a counter-notice. Because Texas Instruments did not reply in 10–14 business days as required by the DMCA, the keys were restored to the article.[ citation needed ]

Two other articles also came under the purview of Wikipedia's office actions[ clarification needed ] because of the DMCA: Damon Dash and Peripheral Component Interconnect.

FBI seal controversy

The seal of the FBI, which the FBI demanded be removed from Wikipedia Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.svg
The seal of the FBI, which the FBI demanded be removed from Wikipedia

In July 2010, the FBI sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation demanding that it cease and desist from using its seal on Wikipedia. [21] The FBI claimed that such practice was illegal and threatened to sue.

In reply, Wikimedia counsel Michael Godwin sent a letter to the FBI claiming that Wikipedia was not in the wrong when it displayed the FBI seal on its website. [22] He defended Wikipedia's actions and also refused to remove the seal. [23]

NSA lawsuit

In March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation, along with other groups, sued the National Security Agency over its upstream mass surveillance program. [24]

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. WordLogic Corporation et al

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. WordLogic Corporation et al was a lawsuit involving the Wikimedia Foundation as plaintiff and the companies WordLogic Corporation and 602531 British Columbia, Ltd. as defendants over a patent dispute. [25] WordLogic claims that the Wikimedia Foundation and the MediaWiki free software infringes on at least Claim 19 of the U.S. patent 7,681,124 .[ why? ] [26] Wikimedia denies those claims and has moved under 28 U.S.C.   §§ 2201 – 2202 for a declaratory judgment against the WordLogic entities requesting a declaration from the Court that a number of patents property of defendants are invalid, and that Wikimedia Foundation does not infringe those patents "directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents" as provided by the Title 35 of the United States Code. The case was filed on March 11, 2020, before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [27] On July 18, 2020, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. moved to dismiss with prejudice its own complaint. [28]

Richard Desmond is the former owner of Asian Babes and Readers' Wives. In November 2021, The Guardian reported that he has hired lawyers to force Wikipedia to remove the word "pornographer" from his biographical page. Desmond has argued that he cannot factually be described as a pornographer because that term applies only to individuals who publish illegal and obscene material. Desmond says the top-shelf magazines and television channels he owned for decades were instead in the legitimate "adult material" category distributed in high-street shops and on Sky UK. Desmond has spent years having his Wikipedia page edited in a failed attempt to remove any suggestion that he is a "pornographer", preferring the term "philanthropist". [29]

G & G vs. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc

G & G vs. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. [2009] EWHC 3148 (QB) was an English legal case. The case involved "G" who sought a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring that the respondent disclose the IP address of an individual who had edited Wikipedia to include private and sensitive information about her and her child. [30] The order was granted. [31] The judgment drew attention, inter alia, in paragraph 12 to the risk that "the naming of the respondent may indirectly enable readers who already know other information about the case to identify of [sic] the claimant." The possibility is alluded to again in paragraph 40, which notes that "There are occasions when the court does impose a prohibition upon disclosure of the fact that an order has been made." [ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

Online service provider law is a summary and case law tracking page for laws, legal decisions and issues relating to online service providers (OSPs), like the Wikipedia and Internet service providers, from the viewpoint of an OSP considering its liability and customer service issues. See Cyber law for broader coverage of the law of cyberspace.

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants taking actions to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and thus have attracted plaintiffs to file new cases there, even if there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction.

A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute. The declaratory judgment is generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States, and is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the remedies granted by courts of equity. A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or more other remedies.

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent troll</span> Pejorative term related to intellectual property

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities, which do not practice their asserted patent, may not be considered "patent trolls", when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (1916), was a United States Supreme Court case governing the scope of federal question jurisdiction.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act</span> 1998 U.S. federal law

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP), a group which includes Internet service providers (ISP) and other Internet intermediaries, by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute</span> 2009 legal dispute

In July 2009, lawyers representing the National Portrait Gallery of London (NPG) sent an email letter warning of possible legal action for alleged copyright infringement to Derrick Coetzee, an editor/administrator of the free content multimedia repository Wikimedia Commons, hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones since the early 2010s, and made about 40% of all smartphones sold worldwide as of 2024. In early 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, with Samsung typically filing countersuits with similar allegations. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the smartphone wars: extensive litigation and fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications.

<i>Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.</i>

Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. was a copyright case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving a DMCA takedown notice dispute between companies that produce virtual animals on Second Life. Ozimals filed a DMCA takedown notice to Linden Research, the makers of Second life, claiming that Amaretto's horse infringed on their bunnies and demanding their removal. Consequently, Amaretto responded with a counter-DMCA notice and applied to the court for a temporary restraining order to forbid Linden Research from removing their virtual horses. This was granted and held in effect as the case proceeded. Amaretto claimed in court that Ozimal's DMCA notice was copyright misuse and asked for a declaration that its horses did not infringe copyright. Ozimals counterclaimed for copyright infringement. The court eventually dismissed both claims.

<i>Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc.</i> Legal dispute between Atari and Nintendo

Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc., 975 F.2d 832, is a U.S. legal case in which Atari Games engaged in copyright infringement by copying Nintendo's lock-out system, the 10NES. The 10NES was designed to prevent Nintendo's video game console, the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), from playing unauthorized game cartridges. Atari, after unsuccessful attempts to reverse engineer the lock-out system, obtained an unauthorized copy of the source code from the United States Copyright Office and used it to create its 10NES replica, the Rabbit. Atari then sued Nintendo for unfair competition and copyright misuse, and Nintendo responded that Atari had engaged in unfair competition, copyright infringement, and patent infringement.

Theodore Katsanevas was a Greek academic and politician. He was a member of the Greek Parliament from 1989 to 2004 for the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PA.SO.K). In May 2013, Katsanevas founded the political party Drachmi Greek Democratic Movement Five Stars, which campaigns for Greece to abandon the euro and return to the drachma.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president</span>

The following is a list of notable lawsuits involving former United States president Donald Trump. The list excludes cases that only name Trump as a legal formality in his capacity as president, such as habeas corpus requests.

<i>Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media</i> Defamation lawsuit

Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, No. 303630, was a New York Supreme Court defamation case. Andrew Rector sued Major League Baseball, the New York Yankees, ESPN and their MLB announcers for broadcasting images of him sleeping at a game at Yankee Stadium between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox and allegedly making defamatory comments about him. Rector sued for $10 million for "defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress". The case was dismissed by Judge Julia Rodriguez, who ruled that the statements made were not defamatory.

References

  1. 1 2 "US billionaire wins high court order over Wikipedia 'defamation'". The Guardian. May 9, 2011. Archived from the original on December 2, 2016. Retrieved December 15, 2016.
  2. ↑ "U.S. Law Protects Anonymous Speech, Not Billionaires". Forbes . May 10, 2011. Archived from the original on July 30, 2017. Retrieved September 4, 2017.
  3. 1 2 "Hedge fund boss wins Wikipedia case". Daily Telegraph. London, England. May 10, 2011.
  4. ↑ Rogers, Jacob; Davenport, Allison (April 11, 2019). "A German court forced us to remove part of a Wikipedia article's 'history.' Here's what that means". Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on April 14, 2019. Retrieved May 22, 2019.
  5. ↑ "Wikipedia goes to court to defend defamation immunity". The Register. May 7, 2008. Archived from the original on August 1, 2013. Retrieved April 15, 2013.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Beaumont, Claudine (May 11, 2008). "Wikipedia fights defamation lawsuit". Telegraph. Archived from the original on November 9, 2012. Retrieved April 15, 2013.
  7. 1 2 "Bauer v. Wikimedia". Citizen Media Law Project. May 2, 2008. Archived from the original on July 13, 2010. Retrieved December 21, 2011.
  8. ↑ Beaumont, Claudine (May 11, 2008). "Wikipedia fights defamation lawsuit". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on November 9, 2012. Retrieved September 6, 2012.
  9. ↑ "Zoeller v. Josef Silny & Associates". Digital Media Law Project. Archived from the original on December 26, 2017. Retrieved December 26, 2017.
  10. 1 2 3 "Wikipedia cleared of defamation". The Inquirer. November 2, 2007. Archived from the original on October 24, 2014. Retrieved April 15, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 "Wikipedia cleared in French defamation case". Reuters. November 2, 2007. Archived from the original on December 21, 2012. Retrieved April 15, 2013.
  12. ↑ "Gibson v Amazon complaint". Archived from the original on April 5, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2017.
  13. ↑ "ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: Granting Defendants Pacific Lutheran University, Amazon for Sylvia Scott Gibson et al v. Amazon.com". Justia Dockets & Filings. Retrieved October 30, 2023.
  14. ↑ "FindLaw's Writ – Ramasastry: Is an Online Encyclopedia, Such as Wikipedia, Immune From Libel Suits?". Writ.news.findlaw.com. December 12, 2005. Archived from the original on January 27, 2013. Retrieved April 15, 2013.
  15. ↑ "AAFM ® Legal Complaint FOR Defamation, Libel and Fraud To Wikipedia/Wikimedia Legal Offices". AAFM. Archived from the original on June 20, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2013.
  16. ↑ Simcoe, Luke (June 25, 2014). "Canadian businessman sues Wikipedia editors for defamation". Metronews .
  17. ↑ Alfonso, Fernando III (June 24, 2014). "Wikipedia editors hit with $10 million defamation lawsuit". The Daily Dot . Retrieved May 14, 2019. Updated 11 December 2015.
  18. ↑ "Philanthropist Yank Barry prepares to bolster lawsuit against Wikipedia editors, strategically withdraws first complaint". PRNews Channel. July 17, 2014. Retrieved August 2, 2014.
  19. ↑ "Wikipedia România, în mijlocul unui proces". Digi24 (in Romanian). September 15, 2016. Retrieved February 8, 2022.
  20. ↑ "Detalii dosar 6954/2/2018". Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie a României (in Romanian). Retrieved February 8, 2022.
  21. ↑ "Letter from FBI to Wikimedia" (PDF). July 22, 2010. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 18, 2014. Retrieved August 16, 2012.
  22. ↑ "Letter from Wikimedia to FBI" (PDF). July 30, 2010. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 18, 2014. Retrieved August 16, 2012.
  23. ↑ Schwartz, John (August 2, 2010). "F.B.I., Challenging Use of Seal, Gets Back a Primer on the Law". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 6, 2014. Retrieved August 16, 2012.
  24. ↑ Ingram, David (March 10, 2015). "NSA sued by Wikimedia, rights groups over mass surveillance". Reuters. Archived from the original on September 30, 2015. Retrieved August 28, 2015.
  25. ↑ Masnick, Mike (April 2, 2020). "Predictive Text Patent Troll Tries To Shake Down Wikipedia". Techdirt . Retrieved April 7, 2020.
  26. ↑ Ohanian, H. Artoush. "Re: Infringement of WordLogic Patents by Wikipedia Inc". DocumentCloud . Retrieved April 16, 2020.
  27. ↑ "Complaint for declaratory judgment" (PDF). Wikimedia Commons. March 11, 2020. Retrieved March 19, 2020.
  28. ↑ "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" (PDF). CourtListener. Retrieved July 19, 2020.
  29. ↑ Waterson, Jim (November 5, 2021). "Richard Desmond in legal battle with Wikipedia over term 'pornographer'". The Guardian . London, UK: Guardian News & Media. Archived from the original on August 11, 2022. Retrieved August 11, 2022.
  30. ↑ "G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc". 5RB. December 2, 2009. Retrieved July 16, 2016.
  31. ↑ "Cases – G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc [2009] EWHC 3148 (QB)". One Brick Court. Retrieved July 16, 2016.[ dead link ]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.