Talk:Anti-copyright notice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-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-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This should probably be merged with Anti-copyright, which has a section that duplicates the use of this page. David Regev 13:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And then there's the anti-copyright copyright notice: “This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.” - A certain troubadour, whose works later garnered claims of copyright from several different entities — Rickyrab | Talk 03:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Added to the main article :) --Sanglorian (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger with Copyleft[edit]

A merger with copyleft was proposed, and continues to head the main article. However, the two are not synonyms, or even that close. Copyleft has a narrow definition, of a free, libre and open licence/resource with a share-alike requirement. Not all anti-copyright notices are free, libre and open or have a share-alike requirement; merging them would be a bad idea. --Sanglorian (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Human Rights[edit]

What human right does a law have to automatically restrict what a creator of work doesn't want restricted? If a work was created for example by an alien from another planet on that other planet, surely they don't need to have a copyright or anti-copyright notice - how can someone here who wants their product to be freely available for 'any' purpose including full commercialisation and non-accreditation by another party communicate that without having to create a stupid license or stupid copyright notice? --ZhuLien (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

This article says:

For example, if just free distribution is encouraged, modification or lack of attribution is still illegal, making the material ineligible for collaborative writing projects like Wikipedia.

That is obviously false: not only does Wikipedia accept content that requires attribution, but all text contributions are cc-by-sa (requiring attribution). Some may be dual licensed or originally under a compatible license. (or PD) Anyway, lack of permission for modification is a blocker for Wikipedia use. --Jeremyb (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Legally incorrect[edit]

"It is possible to denounce all claims to copyright in a work including moral rights in a written disclaimer." - Actually, it is not possible to denounce one's moral rights in every jurisdiction. Such article should be written considering there are other countries (and legal systems) in the world besides America. -- (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)