User:BD2412/Archive - Law (fourth 50)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):
Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th
Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009):
1st-2d-3d-4th-5th-6th-7th-8th-9th-10th-11th-12th-13th-14th-15th-16th


I have archived my law-related discussions here

Contents

Flag copyrights?[edit]

There is a discussion on the Village Pump about the copyright status of flags. I must admit that I have never considered the matter, but have tended to assume that all governmental flags are public domain. I suppose that organizational flags (such as that of the Presbyterian Church (USA)) are copyright to those organizations. Your interests include IP, so I thought you might be able to comment. 11:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Flag of the United States.svg
  • You could start by looking at the comments on the U.S. flag. There are indeed some restrictions on the use of flag icons, but you'll need to research that yourself if it's a concern. :) Wahkeenah 12:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

America: From Freedom to Fascism[edit]

Dear BD2412: I removed some material in the above-referenced article that had been copied and pasted from the web site advertising the film itself. I removed it as a possible copyright violation (and I guess I could have cited non-neutral POV as well, maybe). I think I may have asked you this before, but I can't remember the rule. Question: Because I moved the excerpt from the article to the talk page with an explanation of why I deleted it, do we still have a copyright violation problem? Or, is putting it on the talk page OK under the fair use doctrine? Should I delete the quote from the talk page as well? Yours, Famspear 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, moving copyvio material from the article to the talk page probably weakens the fair use rationale as it is arguably no longer being used as part of the "educational" process which the articles serve. So, yes, you should probably delete it altogether if that's the rationale for removing it from the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

freedom of movement[edit]

Still remember that article? Think we could get it up to Featured, or at least GA/A rank? I added new sections on Africa and Tibet. This could really be a good article to add stuff to, and the research isn't all that hard. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my goal from the start of it! bd2412 T 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, wanna do me a favor then? I'm starting (or rather restarting) Wikiproject Climbing. WP:CLIMB. The articles are very simple to improve, most need to be tagged with the {{Climbing}} template. But I really am a little over my head here. I could use some help. Want to give me a hand? SWATJester On Belay! 07:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll sure look it over, though I can't say I know the first thing about climbing! bd2412 T 21:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Glenshaw Glass, etc.[edit]

Thanks for the tip. Things have been fairly quiet with the tax protesters lately. I knew it was too good to last.

It looks like the stuff on South Carolina v. Baker was a wholesale copying of much of the text of the court's opinion, with what looked like some sort of commentary at the end, with no clear delineation. Anyway, at least we have the beginnings of a new article on a tax case now.

By the way, have you by any chance been following Murphy v. IRS? That is really a case to watch for tax geeks like me. In August, a 3 judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled an income tax provision of the IRC unconstitutional (although they did not rule the Federal income tax itself unconstitutional). It was not a tax protester case - it was a case about taxability of personal injury awards. First time in who knows how many years that an income tax provision has been ruled unconstitutional. Legal scholars ripped the opinion apart and, a few days ago, the same 3 judges vacated their own judgment and set the case for rehearing in April. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with next time. Almost any ruling that personal injury awards are not "income" under the Constitution is fairly likely to make its way to the Supreme Court.

Anyway, good to hear from you. Happy holidays! Yours, Famspear 21:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Clientelevision Videos Helping to Expand on Wikipedia Posts[edit]

I was intrigued by the WikiLaw project, particularly as I have been developing something of a video version which may help to augment the articles on various legal topics. Clientelevision.com is an effort to make the law more accessible to laypersons and it, therefore, behooves us to get the word out to those who may benefit the most. I'd be grateful for any advice or guidance you can share on doing just that, together with ideas on how best to integrate the law articles on our site as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.102.250 (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Overprinted copyright notices on images[edit]

If you have an opportunity, I would appreciate your input on this thorny IP law question. Dragons flight 10:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Addressed in the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Closely held companies[edit]

Would you please use a little editorial talent and legal knowledge to properly include that accounting (and I would presume legal) term in the article company and then initialize closely held company to redirect the appropriate '#section'. Much appreciate it, and so will 007! <g>. // FrankB 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! See Corporation#Closely held and public. (Note that a company can only be "closely held" if it is a corporate entity, as the term is an alternative to "publicly held"). Cheers! bd2412 T 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks – was my guess, but figured was better to be sure. I'm userfying that as one result. Best! // FrankB 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

quick question[edit]

about United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp..

Actually a couple of quick questions. What exactly was the question before the court? And secondly, in what manner did the holding grant the executive "inherent powers" in foreign affairs? I understand that the holding says that the power to deal with foreign affairs lies inherently within the Executive, and not with congress, but what powers exactly are those? How are those different than the implied powers of the executive, found in In re Neagle? Sorry, but this case just confuses the hell out of me. SWATJester On Belay! 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This was basically a nondelegation doctrine case - can Congress give the President sweeping authority to make findings of fact and establish rules in light of those findings? Generally not in domestic law (see Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States), but in foreign relations it can. Differs from Neagle because that case was about the President assigning an executive branch employee to carry out a function, and not enacting a penalty against third parties for engaging in disapproved conduct. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#AFI_100_Years..._series_and_copyright that your input might help with. Your name was suggested by another editor as the question deals with copyrights. Sancho 06:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A serious legal advice request[edit]

Hi BD. I came here as i think you are the only person who can provide me w/ some legal advice re this very serious issue. This is the situation:

  • Edit warring and WP:COI at MDS International; a French software company under legal investigation/persecution in the US for patent and intellectual property concerns. MDS Intl. is in conflict w/ MDS America over a software called Xingtechnology StreamWorks Server (see the claim on the web). A Kuwaiti Emir called Sh Ali khalifah al Sabah, former Minister of Finance and Former Minister of Petroleum for the State of Kuwait and Chairman of the Board and Owner of MDS America, who, according to User:Jeanclauduc, who claims to be the CTO of the French companay named Jean Claude Ducasse, had invested an amount of $ 3 millions in MDS Intl. products before asking the company to divulge their accounts. When the company refused the request the Emir proceded to a plaintiff filing in the US. (see Jeanclauduc message at my talk page) All what this French user wants is to get rid of the false allegations or else he will be contacting his lawyers to sue Wikipedia in the Criminal Court in France for the false facts.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDS International decision was to keep the article.
  • WP:SPA - Bhimaji (talk · contribs), WizardOfWor (talk · contribs), 76.109.17.236 (talk · contribs) and the opponent party Jeanclauduc (talk · contribs) are all editing as a "single purpose account".
  • Jeanclauduc is accusing these users of being Kirk Kirkpatrick, the CEO of MDS America, himself.
  • Ronz (talk · contribs), another involved party in the edit warring (though he is not representing de facto any of the 2 companies) has already posted this conflict at WP:COI/N.
  • Conflict resolution - I am in contact via talk pages w/ Jeanclauduc. Note that because of his lack of mastering English, we are communicating in French according to the request at the AN/I.

Could you please advice please? Thanks in advance. – FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF and BD2413, I am not any of those users. However the information was not correctly presented to Mr. BD2413. Mr. Ducasse "threatens" to sue if the allegedly "false" information is not removed. You may communicate with our Frech counsel, Mr. Bernard Willi of FIDAL (www.fidal.fr) at +33 1473888987 or Mr. Laurin Mills of Nixon/Peabody in DC at +1 202 5858515 to discuss this. I will authorize the disclosure from both sources if you need. --Kirk Kirkpatrick, CEO MDS America.

  • Sorry, but I'm not interested in getting involved in this dispute, nor do I have the time at this instance to deal with it. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal question over 09 f9 AACS key[edit]

The administrator User:Prodego referred me to you for legal questions. See User_talk:Davidwr#Speedy_deletion for background. The question has to do with the AACS encryption key controversy. It is my understanding that some companies view the 16-byte "key" that starts off 0x09f9..." as a component of a copyright infringement device and therefore an "illegal number." In general, is it illegal to spread the key around? In general, does a web site like Wikipedia face any legal problems if they do not actively prohibit the spreading of the number? If the answer to those questions is yes, are there exceptions if the number is used in a manner that is not "just as a number?" For example, my signature has the number embedded in the colors of the letters. I consider it a work of art. Does that entitle it to 1st amendment protection that trumps the DMCA? davidwr 09f9 04:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been turning this problem over in my head for a while, and I can think of no legitimate reason why Wikipedia would need to spell out the entire key, much as we can have articles about DNA sequences by reference and without having to spell out the entire sequence. On the other hand, I'm not sure how the DMCA would be interpreted in this situation. The key can certainly be used as a component of a device designed to thwart copyright protection within the language of the act, so I would recommend not including it. The work of art approach is clever, but is not a cure-all - suppose you had some sensitive information about planned military maneuvers. Do you suppose you could get away with publishing them in a painting? bd2412 T 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

help with Colombian judicial branch[edit]

Hello WikiProject Law members. I am trying to create and expand the Colombian judicial branch of power. So far we have some issues translating names. Colombia has two attorney general's offices. One in the judicial branch (Fiscalia General de la Nacion) and the other one part of the "control institutions branch" for Procurment called (Procuraduria General de la Nacion). So far we came up with a couple of names Office of the Attorney General of Colombia for Fiscalia, and Office of the Prosecuting Attorney General of Colombia for Procuraduria. My doubts are with the Prosecuting meaning.. the Procuraduria is basically for Procurement. So I dont know if we should call it Procurement Attorney General of Colombia. What do you think?--I am greener than you! (Lima - Charlie - Over) 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Law library notability?[edit]

Hi, BD2412, long time no see. Anyway, I finally graduated law school, and in the brief window of time between graduation and the study for the bar exam, I have been writing some articles. I wanted to know if starting an article on the Social Law Library here in Boston, MA would meet the the notability criteria. I ask mainly because the criteria seem to be rather broadly drawn and unevenly & arbitrarily applied, and I don't want to go through the work of beginning an article only to have some deletionist jerkwad put it up for AfD.

Social Law Library is the oldest law library in the USA, and Category:Law libraries needs to be populated. I think it meets the criteria, but I would like your official opinion as an administrator. Please write me back on my talk page when you have time. Thanks. --Eastlaw 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite notable - a law library not connected to a law school is a rarity in and of itself. I'd suggest that you lay the fact of it being the oldest law library in the country out in the first line. If you can find a source that supports my observation of free-standing law libraries being a rarity, that would help. Usage statistics that demonstrate the size of the population of interest would help as well, although I don't think they are necessary. Still, try and get as complete an article as possible written before you post it! Cheers! bd2412 T 06:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I wrote the article on the Social Law Library--please look it over and improve it if you can. Thanks! --Eastlaw 06:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good - I had a glance, and will look again later. Good work! bd2412 T 07:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actual innocence[edit]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Actual innocence, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A request in regards to fair use[edit]

I am loath to ask this of you, as I'm sure you get plenty of this, so I will certainly understand if you do not wish to weigh in but... Would you please contribute your thoughts on Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_4#Image:Cogny_Castries_Navarre.jpg? The precis of the matter is that some editors wish to use a photograph to illustrate an article in the same manner that the photograph (presumably) was originally intended to be used and believe it may fall under fair use. It has taken a turn from discussing the issue of our policies on fair use into cherry picking statements from case law. Kotepho 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Kotepho 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey and thanks for your input there. I knew you were a lawyer, but was not aware that you were an intellectual property lawyer. Given that, I'm kind of surprised that you are not involved at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content more. Your arguments would have a lot more weight than the rest of us armchair lawyers (my wife says that my law school is Law & Order). Then again, I'm sure you have to deal with it a lot at the office and would prefer to use Wikipedia for unrelated topics ... I know the feeling. It's nice to see you around again (I know you haven't disappeared per se but I don't think we've interacted for a long time). Regards, howcheng {chat} 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been quite busy with work (and I've been spending a lot more time on Wiktionary as well). Cheers! bd2412 T 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to drop by to thank you for your comments. It's an asset to Wikipedia when experts such as yourself contribute their skills to the project. --BigDT 22:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - I wish I had more time for it these days. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Contract law question[edit]

This may be outside your specialty, but I had a general contract law question. The context is, there are some images on Commons that may be subject to deletion because they were taken in a museum where photos may be taken only for noncommercial use (see Commons:Commons talk:Licensing#photos from British Natural History Museum). Now at this point, I don't know how they inform visitors of this fact, but let's operate on the assumption that it's printed on the ticket stub or there are signs in the museum somewhere. Assuming that the visitor doesn't actually have to sign a statement acknowledging the understanding of that fact, is their "noncommercial use only" policy really a contract? Commons:User:Michelet calls this an adhesion contract but that article still only refers to signed contracts. I'm thinking that this more like the "contract" on the back of a dry cleaning or parking garage stub. So I'd like to hear your take on this if possible. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, since a contract need not be signed to be valid (ticket stub contracts are indeed enforceable, as are oral agreements) I would not put any stock in the lack of a signature as a means to evade the obligations of the contract. If you are allowed entry to a premises in exchange for your agreement not to make commercial use of photos taken on the premises, you are bound by that agreement so long as the owner of the premises took reasonable steps to make you aware of that expectation. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, the important thing is that the museum visitor be made aware of the restrictions before purchasing the ticket or at least entry to the museum (if the ticket booth and the ticket takers are separate). Would that be a correct assessment? howcheng {chat} 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Basically, yes. The law might presume that accepting a ticket stub with writing on it (or the presence of appropriate signage at the ticket booth or at the entrance to the museum) provides constructive notice of this provision. Whether this is the law in the UK is beyond my ken. bd2412 T 18:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Work for hire question[edit]

Hi BD,

Got another copyright question for you, although this isn't relevant to any pending deletions or policies or whatever. I'm familiar with the concept of work for hire (I'm a programmer and I don't own any of the code I write here at work), but this question has come up a few times with regards to photos taken of people by their friends on the subjects' cameras: If I ask a friend (or a stranger even) to take a picture of me on my camera, who owns the copyright? My view of it would be that it's an implied work for hire situation, and that even though I am not the creator of the image, I still hold the copyright. This is assuming there is no explicit agreement made between the parties, just a "Excuse me, could you take my picture?" kind of request. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, BD. I'll be watching your answer :) – DS1953 talk 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That's actually a tough question. I've never heard of it coming up in a case, but technically the person snapping the picture owns the copyright. It's hardly likely that a court would award any damages for the subject's use of the image (there would at least be an implied license). If the subject of the image directed the photographer as to the exact elements to be captured in the image, then the subject can likely claim to be a co-author, entitled to all the same rights in the image as the photographer. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Good answer. I thought of the same question the other day when I saw a picture of someone on Commons and he listed himself as the holder of the copyright for the purpose of granting the CC license. Unless he had a remote shutter control (which did not seem likely in that case), he was clearly not the creator of the work. As an aside, there cannot be an "implied work for hire" since the statute clearly requires that except in the case of an employer-employee relationship, the work made for hire agreement must be in a writing. I guess we'll have to start carrying around agreements for our friends to sign when we ask them to snap that photo. "Will you please take our picture and sign here?" – DS1953 talk 19:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, two issues come up, really. One is that if I ask you to take a picture of x, y, and z, and you do, I'm a co-author of the picture. The other is evidentiary - how does the person who took the picture prove that they in fact took the picture, unless the subject of the picture acknowledges it? bd2412 T 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting. Yes, this has come up on a few IFD discussions ("Uploader is subject of photo so how can they release all rights?" to which I sometimes respond, "Ever hear of a tripod and a self-timer?"). I suppose I can't imagine someone actually suing for copyright infringement if they took a random photo for someone else and that photo appears in a publication, although I'm sure stranger things have happened. But that does answer my question at any rate. In the future, we'll have to ask them have the actual picture-taker send the permission email to OTRS. Seems like an awful lot of red tape for something as innocuous like this, eh? Ah well. howcheng {chat} 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
BD, I agree that those are issues. As you know, to be an author of the work there needs to be some creative element. If I arrange my family on Liberty Island with the NYC skyline in the background and hand the camera to a stranger to snap the picture, I should at least be the co-author. I might even argue that the person pushing down the button was simply performing a mechanical act that a remote control device could have done and that all of the creative elements were mine. That would be a typical situation. If I asked a stranger to take a picture of us with the gray base of the statue in the background and he said "Let's move over here and take one with the skyline", I doubt that I would qualify as a co-author simply because I contributed my family to the photo. Evidence is also obviously another issue. If I ask someone in a group that I know (say, at family picnic), there may be witnesses (assuming they are observant and sober enough to remember). This is an interesting question but the fact is that the person snapping the picture as a favor in unlikely to ever challenge ownership (unless, of course, it turns out that for some reason the picture becomes valuable, such as catching Howard Hughes stepping out of Melvin Dummar's truck in the background). – DS1953 talk 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha, this scenario actually did come up in a PUI discussion after all. See Image:Gil_Hermon3.jpg (if you're interested). howcheng {chat} 06:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Another question[edit]

I'm terribly sorry to bother you again, but this is what you get for revealing yourself to be an intellectual property lawyer :) – I would like your input at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyright material with limited release on Wikipedia. We are trying to determine if it is possible for a copyright holder to have different licenses for different sizes of digital photos, such as CC-BY-SA for an 800x600 size image, but all rights reserved for the full-size 2580x1920 (or larger) file. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain it is - I've seen it done. That is, I've seen photographers provide different licenses for different filesizes of the same digital image. bd2412 T 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Two questions for you[edit]

Hello BD2412, long time no see. Having finally graduated law school and taken the bar exam, I am now unemployed and wasting more time spending my free time adding content to Wikipedia. Anyway, I have two law-related Wikipedia questions for you:

1. I wanted to write an article about Intervention in U.S. civil procedure (you know, FRCP Rule 24 and all that). However, I see that someone has already written and article entitled Intervener, which was apparently written to describe Canadian practice (and frankly, I'm not sure how accurate a description it is). I was wondering if I should add my content to this already existing article and/or move the page when I am done, or if I should simply write a new page and link it to the old one.

2. I noticed that the Lists of United States Supreme Court cases have finally been divided up by Chief Justice. That is quite good, but how exactly did you transclude all theses lists onto the master list and still keep them divided up by decade, as you had with the older versions?

If and when you have time, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. --Eastlaw 07:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to your earlier reply to my message, please be advised that if I am to add to the existing Intervener page, I will need to make some rather drastic and sweeping edits to correct all the factual & legal mistakes therein. I hope to do this sometime within the next few days. If you have any further recommendations or feedback for me, it would be much appreciated. --Eastlaw 02:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Logo copyright question[edit]

Does this logo have copyright protection, or just trademark protection? If there is no copyright protection or it's unclear, should we treat it like a logo that has copyright protection? Thanks for your help. ←BenB4 08:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A logo can certainly be protected by copyright, although it's hard to see what elements are copyrightable in this one. Both the word elements and the design elements are too simplistic to achieve copyright on their own. However, since we're concerned about the logo exactly as it is, I wouldn't take any chances. Has anyone tried to get permission to use it? That sometimes works. bd2412 T 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. I gave it the {{logo}} instead of {{non-free logo}} (which it redirects to.) The part about "copyright and/or trademark" seems right. I don't hold out a lot of hope for asking permission because I can't read Japanese and presumably this would have to go to the Japanese office. ←BenB4 23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would that be the case? I'm certain that Nintendo has a U.S. office authorized to permit uses of its logo. bd2412 T 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I would be surprised if NOA would give any permission for use of the logo given their stated policy, much less permission that would not remain non-free content and thus require fair-use under Wikipedia policies. I can't understand why this logo would be copyrightable, but you're the IP lawyer so I'll leave it as {{non-free logo}}.
Also, BenB4, I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with {{logo}} instead of {{non-free logo}}, since as you noted it redirects there and there are bots that continually replace it. Anomie 20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Originally I thought they were somehow distinct. I'm not sure myself, anymore. ←BenB4 02:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Property Law template[edit]

Hi BD2412, I just wrote an article on the Rule in Wild's Case. I was just wondering if you would object if I added it to the {{Property law}} template, under the heading "Limiting control over future use". Please respond on my talk page. Thanks. --Eastlaw 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Licensing question[edit]

What do you think about User_talk:Mikegodwin#Time for the WP's official copyright lawyer to weigh in. I don't think you can revoke GFDL submission, but what do I know. Obviously if you can that means people can request all their edits be deleted, which doesn't seem right. Prodego talk 16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Want to write a paper on patenting tax strategies?[edit]

Hello, friend! Here's a link that might be of interest to you on the patenting of tax strategies, a topic you and I communicated about briefly many months ago on a Wikipedia talk page (this is a subject about which I know nothing). The Houston Business & Tax Law Journal is calling for papers:

http://taxprof.typepad.com:80/taxprof_blog/2007/08/houston-busines.html

Yours, Famspear 01:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have had very limited exposure to patent law - my bread and butter is trademark, copyright, right of publicity, and defamation. Are you suggesting that we coauthor a piece? bd2412 T 21:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No, and I of course know nothing of patent law, and only one or two things about tax law. I love to research and write (I had ten or twelve small tax articles published years ago in a small, non-peer reviewed publication). Little or no time for that kind of thing right now, anyway.
Regarding right of publicity issues, do you represent many entertainers? Famspear 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I notice you are missing, everything going ok? Prodego talk 23:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The firms I have been with have represented a few entertainers. And indeed, I have been missing (more or less) - just keeping busy with work! bd2412 T 19:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then you should represent me. I sing! Oh, wait a minute, that's just in the shower. And my wife says I'm not "entertaining" when I sing in the shower.

Never mind. Famspear 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Got to watch out for those lawsuits from nearby glass factories, right? :) Prodego talk 21:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear BD2412:

I just thought I'd let you know that the proposed "Patent Reform Act of 2007", House of Representatives Bill 1908 (H.R. 1908), passed the full U.S. House of Representatives on September 7, 2007. If eventually enacted into law, section 10 of the proposal would amend 35 USC 101 to provide that tax planning methods are not patentable. Section 10 would read as follows:

SEC. 10. TAX PLANNING METHODS NOT PATENTABLE.
(a) In General- Section 101 is amended --
(1) by striking `Whoever' and inserting `(a) Patentable Inventions- Whoever'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) Tax Planning Methods-
`(1) UNPATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER- A patent may not be obtained for a tax planning method.
`(2) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of paragraph (1) --
`(A) the term `tax planning method' means a plan, strategy, technique, or scheme that is designed to reduce, minimize, or defer, or has, when implemented, the effect of reducing, minimizing, or deferring, a taxpayer's tax liability, but does not include the use of tax preparation software or other tools used solely to perform or model mathematical calculations or prepare tax or information returns;
`(B) the term `taxpayer' means an individual, entity, or other person (as defined in section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that is subject to taxation directly, is required to prepare a tax return or information statement to enable one or more other persons to determine their tax liability, or is otherwise subject to a tax law;
`(C) the terms `tax', `tax laws', `tax liability', and `taxation' refer to any Federal, State, county, city, municipality, or other governmental levy, assessment, or imposition, whether measured by income, value, or otherwise; and
`(D) the term `State' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.'.
(b) Applicability- The amendments made by this section --
(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act;
(2) shall apply to any application for patent or application for a reissue patent that is --
(A) filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act; or
(B) filed before that date if a patent or reissue patent has not been issued pursuant to the application as of that date; and
(3) shall not be construed as validating any patent issued before the date of the enactment of this Act for an invention described in section 101(b) of title 35, United States Code, as amended by this section.

I presume the measure now goes to the Senate. I know you mentioned that you're not much into the patent side of things, but I just thought I'd pass this along. Yours, Famspear 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BenB4[edit]

I don't have the patience to educate this guy. See [1] and Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Public records. Could you help, or help to find someone else to help? Lupo 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, please do weigh in! I'm glad to see you're back from vacation. ←BenB4 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have two questions about your statement, "copyright in [creative works] are owned by the state. They can be registered, and infringers can be sued." Is there an example of this ever happening? Secondly, why do you disagree with Chicago law professor Hank Perritt's claim that, "Whenever a public duty is the cause of the expression, the incentive justification under the copyrights and patent laws is absent, and any construction of the Copyright Act to protect such official work product would be unconstitutional."? I emailed him and he said he was going to put together a detailed response to the discussion at WT:PD so that should be interesting. ←BenB4 02:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You brought needed clarity to the issue – thank you. (I just discovered the prior discussion; the issue arose again in another location, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_31#Image:Larry_Craig_mugshot.jpg_.28closed.29). As there is no blanket rule applicable to all states, users can easily be confused. But on the issue in question on these pages (the Craig mugshot) the image is clearly public domain. Kablammo 13:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Idea for possible new template for WP:LAW[edit]

Hello again. I've been thinking lately, since we have templates for virtually every other major area of the law, that we should have a template for antitrust/competition regulation. Unfortunately, I am not very experienced at making templates, and I am sure that reasonable minds would differ as to how such a template should be structured, and which pages should be included.

I look forward to hearing your opinion on this, and if you would prefer to discuss this issue on the WikiProject Law talk page, that would be fine too. --Eastlaw 01:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, it's in the works here...let me know if you think it sucks, I won't be offended. --Eastlaw 08:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I like it - put it in practice and others will nip and tuck at it as they see fit. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Here you go, boss: {{Competition law}}. I am already adding it to some pages. --Eastlaw 01:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I like it. It provides a good roadmap for those interested in learning about competition law. bd2412 T 02:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your assistance, yet again[edit]

Hi BD2412, I am attempting to rehabilitate the article on Merger guidelines, to give a better explanation of what they are and what purpose they serve. I don't know how much you know about antitrust law, but any assistance you could give me in this task would be immensely appreciated. I also put it on the to do list at WikiProject Law. --Eastlaw 06:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I will look into it when I free up some time, my friend! bd2412 T 16:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuncupative will[edit]

Perhaps I was a bit too bold in in including this in the template, but I'm going to attempt to find more sources to expand this article. If it still looks like crap in a few days, feel free to remove it from the template until further notice. Sorry to be a pain in your ass :-p --Eastlaw 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a little more detail to the article. I still feel that these are sufficiently different from holographic wills to deserve their own article. If you have access to the Restatements at your job, you can find this topic at Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills & other Donative Transfers, § 3.2. I don't have a Westlaw or Lexis password right now, or I would do it myself. --Eastlaw 06:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain Books from a subscribers-only database[edit]

In response to a question I posted, someone helpfully linked to your comments on the legality of taking material from Google Books. I'd be very grateful to know whether you believe anything about EEBO's stated terms & conditions or subscribers-only model make it less legal to use their material in the same ways one would use any other public domain book. I should probably emphasize that I am interested in page images more than in a transcription of the words (these page images already appear in Wikimedia Commons). (I'm asking about EEBO, but I also wonder whether hosting online free copies of Google Books PDF's, complete with Google watermarks etc., would present any problems.) Wareh 17:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:MCQ was archived. Here's the diff for my question. Wareh 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo at Edward and Elaine Brown[edit]

Hello old friend. I notice that someone has posted an Associated Press photo at the top of this article. I know nothing about the Wikipedia rules on copyright and posting of photos. Just wondering if this is something you would want to look at. Famspear 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I clicked on the picture and now I see someone is asserting fair use. Famspear 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Impressive[edit]

This was impressive: [2]

Thanks! Famspear 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice that the party who started the whole thing seems to have disappeared from the discussion. I hope I had a hand in that. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

MEDCAB Case Tax Protester[edit]

Hello!

I'm Aeon and I will be your Mediation Cabalist for your issue. I'm currently reviewing all statements, difs and said article and will be able to start the mediation soon. All involved parties if you could please leave quick note (no need to make any further statements until I'm ready to begin) saying if you are still willing to undergo mediation. Please keep in mind that the Mediation Cabal cannot and will not enforce the ultimate consensus that will hopefully be gained from this and it will be up to the involved parties to uphold the agreement. Also during the mediation all parties will remain civil (Per WP:CIVIL) and will treat each other with respect. Thank you Æon Insanity Now! 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a problem and I will be very neutral as Tax Law holds no interest for me. I have also reviewed all statements and after the stated article and some of the sources are reviewd by me I should have a few questions for all involved. Thank you for the quick reply. Æon Insanity Now! 18:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE My apologies to all, my computer crashed and I was with out internet for the last few days. The Mediation is now open I will be posting my views and opinions with in the next hour. Æon Insanity Now! 18:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about "Willful blindness"[edit]

I know you are currently out of town on business, but is willful blindness the most legally accurate title for this article? Wouldn't "willful ignorance" or "contrived ignorance" be better? Or should we simply create redirects to those titles? There is no great urgency in this, just please address this issue when you have time.

By the way, that's a really cool picture of the New Jersey State House.  :-) --Eastlaw 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've most frequently heard it referenced as "willful blindness". Cheers! bd2412 T 02:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
OK then, I created the redirects. --Eastlaw (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

on Corporate Personhood/personhood Debate – juristic person[edit]

Hi BD2412,

Thank you for weighing in.

Regarding the "undo" on my redirect...

FYI, I created the page title "Corporate Personhood Debate" to create a place to restore the original "Corporate personhood" article and the topic it represents – after another user had redirected the latter to "Juristic person" and moved all of it's contents to the "talk" page of an intermediate page, "Juristic person/CP". All of this appeared to me to be (possibly) motivated by a POV in favor of censoring or camoflaging the US political controversy and hiding it under the arcane term "juristic person".

It appeared to me like someone found a way to effectively 'delete' the Corporate personhood page without going through the process of nominating it for deletion and gaining concensus. Perhaps this was not intentional, but as a result, the "Juristic person" page is now tagged non-NPOV because all the POV wars over Personhood/personhood are mucking up what is an important article on the legal concept, and now Wikipedia does not have good articles on either "Juristic person" (legal idea) OR Corporate personhood (controversy).

Looking for Wikipedia precedent for this, I examined another politically controversial topic, abortion, and noted that we finally achieved a 'peaceful' outcome (nutrality concensus) AND excellent content by providing separate pages for an encyclopedic entry on Abortion, and for Abortion Debate. This seemed to me to be the best way to solve the issue and restore the "political controversy" topic as a recognized element of US political landscape, while silmultaneously allowing a path to eventually achieve nutrality on the "Juristic person" legal article under WikiProject Law.

I redirected "corporate personhood" away from "Juristic person" to the new 'Debate' page because (as a quick google search will confirm), the overwhelming usage of the term "corporate personhood" refers to the controversy, not to the legal definition of a "juristic person". I think it's plain that a legal professional needing encyclopedic reference to the legal entity would search for "juristic person" or (more prevalent) "juridical person", and would not be harmed by my undoing the previous (undiscussed) redirect.

I would request that you talk to me and/or read my extensive comments on the affected pages before simply undoing my work.

Anyway, with the restoration of the original "Corporate personhood" page to "Corporate Personhood Debate", all of the talk pages seem to have been restored as well, and I commented and documented my changes on the "Juristic person" page as well, if you want to check out the history.

Again, thanks for your interest, hope you will look in on the topic, comment back to me if you disagree, and keep an eye on me/others for civility and POV, and further "wiki tricks" (intentional or not).

Thanks (again),

riverguy42 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Again BD2412!!

Regarding your message:

Although you present a compelling rationale about the majority of discussion of corporate personhood being about the debate over it, the same could be said about abortion (or affirmative action, or global warming, or the alternative minimum tax). This is precisely why the main article on any of these topics should describe what the thing is and a separate article (referenced from the main article) should describe the controversy surrounding it.

I'm all for structuring both articles so that one naturally leads readers to the other, but irrespective of the dispute over corporate personhood, it is a thing that presently exists and that people have to understand in their business dealings. That was the rationale behind my restoration of the previous redirect - perhaps we can resolve this by having a summary and reference to the debate article early on in the juristic person article? Cheers!

  • I am feeling SOOO new here and ignorant of this world...thanks...

re: "...the same could be said about abortion..."

Absolutely - that is the first place I looked for Wikipedia precedent. There are two excellent pages, one for Abortion and one for Abortion Debate. That's where I'm hoping to take this, because the "Juristic person" page is sorely non-NPOV and, under the scope of WikiProject Law should (I imagine) be relieved of the POV wars.

re: "perhaps we can resolve this by having a summary and reference to the debate article early on in the juristic person article?"

That would help, but the issue of "personhood" is associated with the debate/controversy and not with the legal concept, and if there MUST be a redirect, I would like to see Corprorate personhood redirect to the debate rather than the WP:Law definition of a "juristic person".

I'm not sure if this can be better solved with a disambiguaiton page, what do you think?

And OBTW...thanks VERY much for the civility and help...I'm trying to do a good job here and also be (maybe a bit too) bold, and do very much appreciate your help!!!!

riverguy42 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

appreciate...[edit]

...your help.

Even for a 'seasoned' type like me, jumping into Wikipedia can be a bit unnerving. It's becoming clear to me that individuals like you are what make this (somewhat mysteriously) wonderful resource work so well in the VAST majority of cases.

Thanks again and please feel free to continue to 'mentor' me.

riverguy42 —Preceding comment was added at 23:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985[edit]

Greetings! I made some major changes to this article. Unfortuntely, it's now heavily weighted, perhaps too much so, towards the tax issues, which may be boring or tangential to most readers interested in these coins.

The Kahre case (mentioned in the articl) was another one of those cases like the Tom Cryer case, where the taxpayers actually lost on a ruling (in this case, the court rejecting the taxpayers' argument that they could avoid taxation on the relatively high fair market value of the coins) but ultimately were acquitted by the jury – apparently based on a skillfully presented Cheek defense. I corrected the misleading verbiage in the article.

Still, the article probably needs to be improved by someone who knows more about the non-tax aspects of these gold coins. Yours, Famspear 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in the footnotes in National Academy of Arbitrators[edit]

I've had a problem figuring out how to do that. I am somewhat torn, however, about having links just be at the bottom of the page in the footnote section. I like having the link in the text. On the other hand, having the footnotes shown is really good. Is there a way to do both?

Thank you for your note on style, etc. I appreciate the guidance.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Stan

Well, we try to keep things in the style of a printed encyclopedia, which generally does mean having footnotes at the bottom. Please read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and specifically Wikipedia:Footnotes for a full explanation. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction: It was the article on Theodore St. Antoine that you corrected, not the National Academy of Arbitrators. Thanks for your very prompt reply. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Stan

Response[edit]

Talk:Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Cheney_is_a_separate_issue. Travb (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing Court of Appeal![edit]

Oh, man. I was working on inappropriate linking to the Court of Appeal disambiguation page, and kept running into cases where what people really needed was an explanation of what an appellate court was. I was skipping the most egregious cases, figuring I'd come back afterwards and do what you did, but now I don't have to. So THANKS! -Nkocharh (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Springer v. United States and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.[edit]

Dear bd2412: User "Mpublius" is at it again on pushing nonsense tax protester garbage, especially in the above-referenced articles – even after having been exposed. At some point, maybe soon, I may want to open a "request for comment" on Mpublius (remember the BB69 affair back in late 2005?). Any advice you can give would be appreciated. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pollack[edit]

Your recent edits to the paragraph of the Article One article regarding Pollack, while factually accurate, strike me as an unnecessary and potentially confusing level of detail. Whether the particular taxing statute in that case was about taxes derived from land ownership or whatever, the relevance of the case is that a tax imposed on individuals was held unconstitutional under § 2, cl. 3, and that Amendment XVI allowed income taxes to be imposed on individuals without apportionment. I think that mentioning the business about the income being derived from land ownership distracts from the reason the case is relevant to the discussion. My effort (whether successful or not, I'm not sure) has been to de-mystify those parts of the Constitution that are either too dense or else so historically obsolete that contemporary lay persons tune it out. I am not sure that your reference to income "derived from land ownership" (or however it reads) does much more than conjure up the arcane black magic that was constitutional taxing doctrine before Amendment XVI, while distracting from the relatively simple reason that Pollack is relevant to the discussion. However, I didn't want to unilaterally revert the edits without discussing them.

On the other hand, it was good to wikify the case names! I had thought about doing it but didn't care to try and make each link "work." MrArticleOne 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I went to that level of detail because we are occasionally beset by tax protesters who argue the summarized position. A reading of the case shows that the Court clearly felt that income could be taxed, but that taxing income from land was too close to taxing the value of land itself, which would need to be apportioned. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, but what I mean is that the discussion is at a level of generality that I think probably should not be trying to engage the obscure and complex arguments made by tax protesters. The case is important in that context, whether rightly or wrongly decided and whatever it actually happened to stand for, because it prompted the Sixteenth Amendment. That's all I meant. I just think that the tax protester wars should be fought in other, more specific/detailed articles. MrArticleOne 22:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly[edit]

Hello, I have created an article about the UN Parliamentary Assembly, a proposed world body that would be similar to Europarl. Please review and vote on the WP:FAC nomination. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nondelegation doctrine in Clinton v. City of New York?[edit]

Hi – since you've contributed to all three of Nondelegation doctrine, Clinton_v._City_of_New_York and Article One of the United States Constitution, I'm hoping you might be able to resolve the question at Talk:Nondelegation_doctrine#Re: Line Item Veto – thanks! Joriki (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Benjamin N. Cardozo[edit]

Hi BD2412, thanks for sticking up for me on the talk page of this article. It's nice to know that I'm not some lone nut who only sees things one way.

Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, you asked me to help you improve the appellate court article. I'm sorry I didn't respond to you in a timely fashion, as I have been quite busy with real-life concerns. I am still trying to think of stuff to put in the article.

By the way, I was finally admitted to the New Jersey bar last week.  :) --Eastlaw (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the Bar - and thanks for offering to help improve the appellate court article. bd2412 T 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, congratulations on getting accepted to an LLM program! I hope it goes well for you. --Eastlaw (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I will make my best go of it! bd2412 T 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio concern[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Mount Sinai Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  – Whpq (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! :D[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but does Image:Extremesportsbears.jpg meet the criteria for non-free image use? If not, why doesn't it? Maser (Talk!) 06:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the classic example of fair use - a low-quality version of an image designated for use in an article for which the image illustrates the subject of the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?[edit]

Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles – that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph – not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them – or either pair – be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested[edit]

Don't know if you might be interested in this or not, but: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident. Prodego talk 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Other articles of interest to tax protesters[edit]

Regarding the current discussion about how to treat tax protesters, I would suggest that the following articles are possible candidates for additions to the list, should the Wikipedia community consensus support your proposal:

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Direct tax

Indirect tax

Excise

Excise tax in the United States

Tax avoidance and tax evasion

Taxing and spending clause

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.

Springer v. United States

Cheek v. United States

The Law that Never Was

Joseph Banister

Wayne Bentson

Edward and Elaine Brown

Dave Champion

Robert Clarkson

Arthur Farnsworth

Eddie Ray Kahn

Vivien Kellems

Devvy Kidd

Irwin Schiff

Bob Schulz

Richard Michael Simkanin

We the People Foundation

I wanted to list these here with you on your talk page for your input before formally proposing that these articles be added. I figure trying to propose this on the comment page might needlessly complicate the discussion. Your thoughts? Famspear (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Schiff is there already; otherwise, please do add these - have they all been the subject of previous tax protester rhetoric edits? I don't want to extend this to cover articles where we haven't had a real problem (although I think they will be covered in principle). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Tonight, I will try to go through the edit histories for these articles and see which articles have been the more serious problems in terms of being bombarded by tax protesters. I know that some articles have been only sporadic targets. Other articles just happen to be about tax protesters, but for whatever reason have not presented too many problems (like the Farnsworth article, I think). Stay tuned, and thanks! Famspear (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear BD2412: Well, I've gone through some of the edit histories for the articles I cited above, and just made a quick general, non-scientific review. Based on that – and to my surprise – I am withdrawing my suggestion that these articles be added to the list now under discussion. Aside from the Schiff article which, as you said, is already in the subject list, I didn't see as many attacks by tax protesters on these articles as I expected or "remembered" there to have been. Even the Pollock article, which I expected to have had a rough history, has fared pretty well. Instead, the bulk of time by Wikipedia editors seems to have been spent in the articles you listed! Thanks, Famspear (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Feedback[edit]

Hi there! As suggested by another user who named several wikipedians well instructed in law, we would like any feedback you could give us at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#BusinessWeek's Terms of Use. Basically, BusinessWeek's User Agreement explicitly forbids to deep link (link to any page that is not their home page), and have apparently asked a CEO who was recently interviewed by them not to link to the interview itself since it is considered a breach of their terms of use (according to this CEO's blog, that is). Since we have over 8,000 deep links to their site, we would like to know if you know any precedent about this kind of claim and whether it is enforceable or not according to your own knowledge. Thanks in advance. – ReyBrujo (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. bd2412 T 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Real property use tax[edit]

Dear BD2412: Can you take a look at this article, which I just discovered? Editor Morphh has raised copyright concerns about it on my talk page, and I have some separate concerns as I've just expressed on the talk page for that article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Post script: For what it's worth, the article was created by a new user "Walter Hemmings," who has also created some other tax articles. Famspear (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but not until the weekend! bd2412 T 20:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
While your looking at copyright issues on tax articles.. ;-) Tax rates around the world uses a source (www.worldwide-tax.com), which is on our spam blacklist. The table in the article is very similar to the one on their website. Morphh (talk) 20:35, 06 February 2008 (UTC)