This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
That is incorrect, information about public institutions certainly can be copyrighted and there's no indication that it isn't in this case. Copyright exists automatically unless explicitly disclaimed. I have removed the offending content from this article, you should not readd it. Hut 8.521:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
This is ridiculous. Explanation of the functions and competencies of a public institution cannot be copyrighted. How can words and phrases like "equality body" or Paris Principles or "legally binding decisions" or "compulsory administrative measures" be copyrighted and if they are - HOW to explain what this institution is actually for!? --Stalik (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
