|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
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)
Merger with Copyleft
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)
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires attribution
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)
"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. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-copyright notice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160324154539/http://ostatic.com/blog/the-unlicense-a-license-for-no-license to http://ostatic.com/blog/the-unlicense-a-license-for-no-license
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.