Talk:Copyright

Misleading intro

Copyright is not, as the first sentence would have it, "a legal right". This is a widespread misconception. Rather, copyright is a bundle of legal rights.

There are very specific rights, such as the right to perform or the right to transmit. These are enumerated in the "Rights granted" section.

However, it would help readers to better understand the matter at hand if the first sentence were changed to "Copyright is a bundle of legal rights created by law,...".

Also, the "country" part should be left out, because it may be laws enacted by other entities than a country, for example a supranational entity such as the European Union, or a US-state, all of which have their own separate copyright laws (in addition to federal laws). Ds77 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

OK how about "jurisdiction" instead of "country"; and how about set instead of bundle? Mike Spathaky (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. However jurisdiction probably is not well understandable for a common wp reader. How about state? EU Directives have to be implemented by the Member-States.

Checked first few references, almost all seem below the standard. Gave it some thoughts. Re-composed first sentence, tried to grap the essential, basic thing in copyright. Did also add/remix some words in other sentences of the intro, explaining (groups of) countries (states) make mutual agreements to deal with crossing border situations. Added some lines to explain that not only states, but also companies create their own copyrights. Feel free to make it better, discuss. 178.4.79.203 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright on hundreds years old manuscripts

Some but especially British libariers claim copyright on old manuscript (scans). I like to read how they justify such claims but this context is missing. Plz add chapter or discus subject (collect sources?). Perhaps related to Cultural_heritage . Random exmaple of this copyright see top pix 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, there's two possibilities with that. One, they could mean that the photograph of the manuscript is copyrighted, and photograph copyright is mentioned in the article. Two, the article could be confusing copyright, the ability to restrict copying, with attribution, stating where the information came from. The original manuscript, being 750 years old, is not copyrighted. One way we could incorporate this sort of idea into the article is to talk about the dynamic of how/why photographs of public domain things can be copyrighted, but I suspect that might be better suited for Photography and the law#Copyright. lethargilistic (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"... industrial property rights, which are used for inventions ..."

See Talk:Intellectual_property#"..._industrial_property_rights,_which_are_used_for_inventions_...". Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

About copyright

Hi ! So i’m The new user on Wikipedia, I didn’t much about copyrights. Now I just know only that we have to use a picture that you didn’t own with the permission by the owner of the pics I know only this. Today i use a picture of the American Actress without Permission . Someone who knows about copyright please explain me. Thank you for reading my discussion.

I deeply appreciate

Iamcryingbaby Iamcryingbaby (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Misstatements on US copyright in "Conception" section

The article currently says in the "Conception" section, that: In the US, the Constitution protects the rights of authors and the legislature, Congress, can create national copyright laws but must exercise their power within the scope of the Constitution. This is not correct. Congress is empowered by the copyright clause to protect the rights of authors, but is free not to do so. Copyright is not constitutionally protected -- Congress could abolish it if it chos to do so, although this i highly unlikely. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That same section mentions the US copyright acts of 1790, 1906, and 1976. But it omits the significant act of 1802. (I will need to check my source for the exact date, but it is close to that.) That act was the one in force in the US for over 100 years, and made significant changes to the 1790 act. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That same section says authority was granted to the states to protect authors’ unpublished works. Again not quite correct. Ther was no Constitutional grant of authority to the US States over copyright, and to the best of my understanding there were no state-level copyright statutes. State courts did undertake as part of the existing common law, to protect rights to unpublished works. This ended with the Act of 1976, which extended federal copyright protection to works at the moment of fixation, and preempted all state copyrights. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright enforcement in non-U.S. countries/copyright enforcement for various forms of media

Would this be a topic worth fleshing out in this article? I know that Japan has a very different attitude towards regulating fan works than the U.S. does (i.e. passively lets most fan works be sold for money, even if they are popular, most of the time v.s. as soon as a fan-work is popular, especially if it's making money, the cease-and-desist hammer will be used). DriftWrench2k (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be :). Finding a reliable source to cite for that information that meets Wiki standards might be difficult, though..i am not really sure how one would go about searching for that.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)