Talk:Statutory license

Thread: Actual laws as examples

Can anyone find references for actual laws? It would be nice to provide a list of known laws, including (a) what it grants, (b) what jurisdiction(s) the law covers, and (c) external authoritative reference to the law if available. Some Non-US examples would be great. --Unixan 02:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thread: Statutory license vs. collection society licensing

In a previous edit of this article, there appeared to be confusion between compulsory licensing law and collection societies like ASCAP and BMI. Compulsory licensing law, if I understand correctly (IANAL), does not cover the commercial selling of performance work that ASCAP and BMI do.

If someone more familiar than I am on this topic correct or add to the article, please do! Unixan 00:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lack of content

there is nothing on this page not included under compulsory licenses, or the main copyright page. If nobody has suitable additional material to add, it should be suggested for deletion. Comment? Content?DGG 21:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I do not know any relevant or real difference between a statutory license and a compulsory license. Unless anyone can provide content that suggests otherwise, I think this page should be merged/redirected to compulsory license. Hartboy (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree, there is no difference, though in US and Australian law compulsory licences are known as statutory licenses. This stub is of poor quality, it is not sourced and it is wrong to say that statutory licences create an exception in copyright law. I will redirect to compulsory license.--SasiSasi (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various ways to say license...

There is a lot of confusion between what each license means and allows. For example, within the music industry there are:

Compulsory licenses, mechanical licenses, statutory licenses...

which all seem to be saying the same thing and often only dealing with music. Interestingly enough, there are examples of these within one of the articles that refers to medicine (which does not have a license like any of these). These also do not discuss how these licenses refer to patents.

I suggest someone either delete some of the articles or merge them. (Please keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_Sampling_License as this is a stub of the main topic!)