Talk:Copyright

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Copyright. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/books?id=dMYXq9V1JBQC&dq=statute%20of%20anne%20copyright&lr=&as_brr=3&source=gbs_navlinks_s
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625003242/http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf to http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/html_eng/ucc52ms.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005014901/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-register.htm to http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-register.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226112433/http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm to https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copyright. 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/20170702033641/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf to https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816113145/http://copysouth.org/en/documents/csdossier.pdf to http://copysouth.org/en/documents/csdossier.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

"work for hire" citation could be a better example

The statement "The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author himself if the work is a 'work for hire'" cites the court case U.S.C. § 201(b); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989), which overturns a work for hire court decision. So, the reference mentions the possibility that work for hire can mean that the employer gets the copyright, but the result of the case is the opposite. If someone knew of a case where work for hire was upheld, it might make a better example. 167.249.181.222 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file En-Copyright.ogg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 27 May 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)