>My analysis for the first factor was Wikipedia is not entitled to claim
>educational use, since it is not an accredited institution of learning.
This is the same argument, almost word for word, that you have repeated about six times in the Wikipedia discussion. It was unpersuasive then and it is equally unpersuasive now, since it flies in the face of large amounts of case law that have found fair use where nobody was making any claim to be an accredited anything. The Acuff Rose case in 1994 said
the mere fact that a use is educational and not for profit does not insulate it from a finding of infringement, any more than the commercial character of a use bars a finding of fairness
If you want us to believe nonetheless that being an accredited educational institution is essential to a fair use defense, you need to cite some case law. Merely repeating your argument over and over will not accomplish anything useful.
>Are there flaws in my reasoning?
Yes.
R's,
John
Received on Thu Oct 05 2006 - 01:20:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:57 GMT