Engraving Copyright Act 1734
No. They say nothing about that. It would take me about eight hours to explain why (this is something that only lawyers understand) and I don't have the time. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you sir. 1983 protects from "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" and the human right to control original art for a time was authorized for congrsssional protection in the Copy[rite] Clause but was never protected.
1988 then authorizes the application of comon law to protect anything authorized but not protected adequately by statute. This is pending before the Western District of Arkansas and will be partially dismissed if the falsehood taught in law shool is allowed to stand. I do not believe it will be allowed to remain the joke on United States copy[rite] law or just a HOAX. CurtisNeeley (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi CurtisNeeley. It seems that many of your edits have involved what we call POV edits -- edits that are primarily aimed at promoting a particular view or idea that you have, that is not supported by neutral, third-party research. For instance, on several pages you've posted content about a lawsuit you've filed, and/or inserting content about legal & historical theories you've developed relating to that litigation. Many of these edits were made in 2013 and have been subsequently reverted (several today, by me). Based on discussions I've seen on various talk pages, it seems like you're understanding more about why these kinds of edits are not appropriate for Wikipedia. But I wanted to post here on your talk page, to make sure that you'd had a chance to get the whole picture. Some Wikipedia policies that would be helpful for you to review include the three core content policies: WP:NPOV on neutral points of view; WP:V on verifiability -- that content has to be verified by third-party neutral sources; and WP:NOR on "no original research" -- again, that material has to be independently notable and referenced in third-party neutral sources. You should also review WP:Notability on notability, which relates to how significant an idea or topic is before it is appropriate for Wikipedia.
In at least one talk page you discussed that you thought "wiki" was an appropriate place for an announcement -- it's not. Please try to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- just like Encyclopedia Britannica or the World Book, and not a news or media outlet. See What Wikipedia is not for more information on that topic.