Talk:All rights reserved

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iraqi Study Group[edit]

This article says that "all rights reserved" only refers to copyright, but the Iraq Study Group Report has "all rights reserved," and it has no copyright symbol or statement. I thought maybe it was copyrighted anyway, but I found the complete text in WikiSource.  ??? Twilight Realm 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "All rights reserved" is a term of art from copyright law, but people toss it around rather generically these days and mean whatever it is they mean by it. Probably worth clarifying that in the article. --lquilter 05:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Alle rechten gereserveerd"[edit]

The Translation section says that the Dutch translation is Alle rechten gereserveerd. However, I think Alle rechten voorbehouden is more accepted in Dutch language. Maybe Alle rechten gereserveerd is an official phrase, but "voorbehouden" is used the most, as far as I know. (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Farsi/Persian translations[edit]

For some reason this language appears twice in the translation list (once as Farsi, once as Persian), and the translations given are different! I don't read the language, but the first word is clearly different in each. It probably shouldn't be -- I suppose both forms might well be valid, but it's confusing to have the alternatives listed separately under different headings. (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another source[edit]

Here you go:

  • Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (2004). ""All rights reserved." in a copyright declaration is nearly always just chaff". Frequently Given Answers.

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nil Gaeilge! - No Irish![edit]

Not that it's amazingly important as all Irish people understand English, but I am curious as to why there is no Irish (Gaelic) translation. I see one there for Wales, a country in which the entire native population will also understand English. Given that Irish is an official language of the EU and that dialects of 'Gaelic' or the 'Goidelic languages' are spoken in not only in Ireland but also in Scotland, the Isle of Man and even as far as the USA, I believe an entry should be included in the Irish language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about strange edits[edit]

For anyone watching this article, my apologies for the strange edits. User:ColderPalace1925 inappropriately redirected his userpage to this article, creating problems for Twinkle and other tools. Singularity42 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All Rights are Reserved, not just copyright.[edit]

Warning: Complete nonsense follows. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Crank post. TJRC (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This refers to all inalienable common-law rights (god given rights recognised by the magna charta, bill of rights, etc...) Rights of free men under law, as different to benefits afforded to persons by the local/state/federal government under statute or commerce and adjudicated in court of equity.

Eg: "Reserving all inalienable rights, waving none ever, in My correct capacity as beneficiary of the original jurisdiction. Non-Assumpsit."

When placed upon the document requiring autograph, it forms the offer in which any default terms and conditions that would normally contract the common-law rights of the man/woman, become invalid - particularly when written by the the applicant (who is the instigator of the offer to contract), as is the case of any application form [of which a contract or statutory/legislative act is referenced]. Examples include (without limitation) Application for Registration of live birth, Application for Registration of Motor Vehicle, Application for Registration of Driver's Licence, Application for Employment etc.. When you fill these forms, you are applying these contracts/acts to yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2011‎‎ (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oh please. This is pure and utter cow manure. The term has one meaning and one meaning only. It is used ad a declaration to claim copyright protection under the Buenos Aires Convention and has nothing to do with common law rights, registrations of birth, applications for employment or anything else other than claiming of copyright protection in the countries of the BAC. The above claim is pure insane garbage and has no proof whatseoever. Another great example from the Tinfoil Hattm club. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Alle Rechte vorbehalten" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes by User:Donovyegg[edit]

Donovyegg has been persistently making several kinds of changes to this article:

  • changing the explanation of ARR in ways that they seem to believe are meaningful and accurate, but are nonsense
  • restoring a list of alleged foreign language translations for ARR
  • adding specific types of content creators before the phrase "and other content creators," even though the word "other" is inclusive.
  • intentional vandalism

Lately when these changes have been reverted, Donovyegg has ignored the concerns that were raised, and has demanded that the changes be left alone. Donovyegg's writing and edit summaries indicate that English is not their first language and their comprehension is limited. I'm not the only editor to notice this.

Donovyegg, you are on English Wikipedia. Other users will expect that you can communicate effectively in the language. Articles about law, like this one, require especially careful use of language. There are Wikipedias in other languages, and some of them have articles about ARR. User:TJRC removed the translations from this article and gave reasons here; I will add that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a translation dictionary. The purpose of the article is to summarize the subject in this site's language.

It does not help to insist that you are a good/smart person, or that you believe your changes are great. Almost everyone does. Other editors have raised concerns. Make other changes that do not raise those concerns, or move on. (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]