Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleCopyright is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 27, 2004.
Article milestones
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
June 6, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
May 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Needs Explaining[edit]

"However, Parc argues that contrary to prevailing beliefs, imitation and copying do not restrict cultural creativity or diversity but in fact support them further. This argument has been supported by many examples such as Millet and Van Gogh, Picasso, Manet, and Monet, etc"

How do these famous long dead artists support the argument? Are they being copied? Did they copy when they were alive? The footnote links to a page that does not contain the explanation or requires an account to see the explanation. No good for those of us who don't have an account. Please provide more explanation. Or delete the sentence mentioning these artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjnwood (talkcontribs) 23:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fix citation link to circ[edit]

"United States copyright law does not cover names, titles, short phrases or listings (such as ingredients, recipes, labels, or formulas).[69]"

Reference 69 currently links to which discusses registering copyright for multiple works. Instead, it should link to which is titled "Works Not Protected by Copyright".— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Owner" vs. "holder"[edit]

The article's text oscillates between the terms "(copyright) owner" and "(copyright) holder". I guess they are synonyms, but I'm not sure. If anyone can confirm this, I'll make the text consistent by choosing one of them and add a sentence explaining that they are synonyms. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 17:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

include the copyright logo once in the entire logo, preferably in the opening sentence.[edit]

yes, there is a redirect. but hilariously there is zero additional mentions of it in the article.

just put that snazzy C on the first line of the article, or IN the redirect...

"some people use a logo to signify their right. AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, click link for full article" that's totally a thing on wikipedia.

Zero mention of the logo is just weird. pathological compartmentalization is surely not healthy for a project representing the sum of human knowledge. extensive crosslinking is how brains function.

23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)23:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)2406:5A00:CC0D:3300:283F:8892:1641:DCF1 (talk)