BearWiki:Legal

From BearWiki

As the main page's notice states:

This is an unofficial website and is in no way, shape, or form associated with Man vs Wild, Bear Grylls, The Discovery Channel, Diverse Bristol, or anyone related to the production or broadcast of the show.

It means what it says. This wiki exists for criticism (both positive and negative) of the realism of the show and the soundness of its advice, nothing more. The right to criticize has been held time and time again as sound by the courts, so long as the claims are not slander or defamation. The views expressed are those of the individuals making them. The administration of this website will do its best, as much as time permits, to police the site; however, due to the nature of unmoderated Wikis, we cannot take personal responsibility for posts that individuals make.

Negative statements are not ipso facto defamation. The truth is an absolute defense against defamation. Likewise, one must demonstrate actual malice on the part of the person making the claims for it to be defamation. This wiki contains peoples opinions, observations, and references to other sites to back up claims. Even when negative, none of these things are defamation without the poster being demonstrably incorrect and having actual malice toward the individuals in question. Posing something because you dislike a show is not "malice", nor is being wrong but honestly and reasonably believing what you post defamation.

This site may contain fair use of copyrighted material. This may include screenshots, brief video clips, and images for the purpose of discussion, education, and criticism. To address the four criteria of fair use[1], of which at least three should be met:

• Criterion 1: What is the purpose and character of the use? The purpose of the use is, as described, "discussion, education, and criticism". It is both non-profit and educational (this site does not even contain ads; additional traffic only costs additional money in bandwidth needs).

• Criterion 2: What is the nature of the work? While the work in question is a mixture of "creative" and (supposedly) "factual", even if it were purely creative, such as a work of fiction, "if the purpose and character of use is non-profit public education, even highly creative works can fall into the fair use arena."

• Criterion 3: What is the amount and substantiality of the work being used? In each case, the material will be small excerpts -- a few seconds of an episode designed to show evidence of things that don't fit with the narrative, a couple pictures from a gallery for a similar purpose, and so on. It would be hard to consider anything here "substantial", even by a long stretch of the imagination.

• Criterion 4: What effect does the use have on the market for the original work? While critical comments associated with the work may adversely effect market value, such comments are due to the criticism (free speech), not the work being available here. Nobody is going to avoid watching an hour-long show for the lone reason that they saw ten seconds of it here.

Any content specifically created for this website by its users is considered public domain, barring any statement by the creator to the contrary or where otherwise prohibited by law.

For more information on fair use, defamation, and other methods frequently employed to try and silence criticism, visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website.