Jump to content

Talk:Copyright

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
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
June 6, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
May 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Example[edit]

I think it's a good idea to put Steamboat Willie in this article, with the following caption, put in italic below:

The copyright status of early works such as the 1928 film Steamboat Willie in the United States and in other nations has been subject to controversy due to lobbying by copyright owners. SuperFeral (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continental law[edit]

In many jurisdictions of the European continent, copyright laws did exist in history but did change under Napoleantic rule into another legal concept: "authors' rights" or "creator's right". The German, Austrian and Swiss jurisdiction know the creator's right (Urheberrecht), other jurisdictions know the authors' rights. Authors' and creators' rights in general are absolute owner (or property) rights, that one doesn't have to apply for, the rights apply by the operation of law. No copyright symbol needed. Some people think the wording "copyright" can be used for a description of the continental law concepts and vice versa, but that is a misunderstanding. Both legal concepts differ pretty much. I'll start a paragraph on continental law, as a "stub". Please native english speakers, help improve it, for instance by summarising the given sources in correct english. Thanks. -VanArtevelde (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Ownership of articles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20 § Ownership of articles until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 06:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US Centricity[edit]

Hello. I just created my account today, so please forgive any newbie mistakes :) I wanted to share my thoughts on this article:

The article seems very US-centric. Many sections explain general concepts of copyright and then provide specific examples of US implementation. While it's appropriate to include examples of US laws, it would be beneficial to expand the scope.

I especially feel that the section on Duration could benefit greatly from focusing on global durations. While many countries have the same duration as the US due to international treaties, the differences that do exist are what's actually important. DislekzticBoi (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of length of copyright is poorly covered[edit]

The article is very skimpy on the evolution of length of copyright. It does not say what was the length in the Statute of Anne, for example. One must read half the article to find that the period was initially 14 years in the US. Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Intellectual property" is a very misleading term[edit]

Copyright is not property. Copyright is a monopoly right that is expressly limited in time, whereas property is permanent. Violating copyright is violating a monopoly concession, a business offense; whereas violating someone's property right is theft, a very serious crime. The reason why the term "intellectual property" came to be common in the late 1900s is because publishers want copyright to become permanent too, and its violators to be criminally prosecuted for theft. Wikipedia should be wary of helping that attempt at "legislation by lexicon". Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

singular they[edit]

[this is in regards to a dispute over the preferred phrasing in the "moral rights" section; the dilemma is between using "him/her" in a sentence, to match a singular antecedent, or "them"]. as can be seen by reading the wikipedia article on "singular they", the pronouns "they/them" can be used grammatically as singular pronouns. this usage is also present in the online oxford dictionary, under (they>meaning and use>1.2.b). finally, as I'm sure many are aware, some people are referred to neither by "he" nor by "she", which is why I see it valuable to use the more general "they". I accept that this disagreement won't be resolved by brute-force edit wars, which is why I won't reedit this again, but only ask that future edits on this issue be addressed under this topic and given full elaborations; this includes in particular, in the case of the previous edit, backing up the (implied*) claim that "they" should not be used as a singular pronoun. *I recognize that this is my subjective reading of the previous editor's edit description, and would appreciate being corrected if this was not (his/her/their) intention. SchwartzYosale (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]