Jump to content

Talk:Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Error in note numbers

[edit]

In the version current at the time of writing this, there was a curious error in the automatic numbering of the notes. In the infobox, the superscript [2] links to the note numbered 19; this throws out all the other notes in the range 3-18. I going to make a trivial edit to the page and save it again to see if this disappears. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't, so I'll report this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate reference sections, one added manually the other generated from inline ref tags. Is there an easy way to fix this?Flannel 21:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC) I've found this tool : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PleaseStand/References_segregator#Converting_footnotes_to_list-defined_(LDR)_format which might be able to convert the footnotes to references, do any other editors have a thought on using this? Flannelot (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion in the sub-section listing of 'Relevant Cases'

[edit]

The six cases itemised would be better in date order (1871, 1916, 1934, 1994, 1995, 1995) rather than in alpha (where incidentally two are currently out-of-order as A&M, GRam, GOdf, Levy, Stewt, Univ). Also each should outline a different specific area of copyright ruling, and most (but not all) do that. But the first (the case of A&M-v-VCI 1995) does not describe any ruling - instead it summarises by asking four questions without giving any answers. It therefore seems incomplete (ie. no clear guidance for the reader). And the third case (Godfrey-v-Lees 1995) says the Claimant established joint authorship but was stopped from revoking the Defendant's licence due to a passage of time - followed by a fourth case (Levy-v-Rutley 1871) from over 100 years earlier (!) that defines the concept of joint authorship but spends half of its description on an exact repeat of the third case (Godfrey-v-Lees 1995) wording - while leaving out the third's crucial 'passage of time' failure. This ordering of the two cases (Godfrey followed by Levy) is like putting the "cart" ahead of the "horse-and-duplicate-cart-with-one wheel-missing". The whole section could/should be corrected or improved by better minds than me, ie. people with a specific knowledge of copyright law and its most relevant cases. But I'll make a start (else it may take weeks or months until someone else steps in), by revising the list-order and removing the duplicate text. Pete Hobbs (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date sections:

[edit]

S. 67 omitted (1.1.2011) by virtue of The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2694), art. 3(1)

S52 was omitted. Others may need checking. A comment on the implications or reasons for the amendment would be useful. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2010/2694 31 August 2020 (UTC) I've started reviewing some of these.Flannelot (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snapchat 51.52.209.169 (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copyright,_Designs_and_Patents_Act_1988&oldid=1228818788"