Talk:Durationator
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 November 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Golan v. Holder
[edit]Where is the supposed "indirect mention"? Do you mean the paragraph starting with «Second, and at least as important, the statute creates administrative costs, such as the costs of determining whether a work is the subject of a "restored copyright," searching for a "restored copyright" holder, and negotiating a fee»? The only specific mention I see there is that to HathiTrust spending 1 million in copyright status research: if Durationator is mentioned in the respective amicus brief then it should be said explicitly. Nemo 18:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)