Talk:Copyright

Latest comment: 27 days ago by Thebiguglyalien in topic Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2024
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

"Ownership of articles" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

  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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2024

edit

change "In many modern day publications the terms copyright and authors' rights are being mixed, or used as translations, but in a juridical sense the legal concepts do essentially differ." to "In many modern-day publications the terms copyright and authors' rights are being mixed, or used as translations, but in a juridical sense the legal concepts do essentially differ." Ctheorya (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Thank you for catching this! :) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply