 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright?
editI noticed this was copied from this page but there is no copyright sign on this page exept the "Copyright-UNT" in the title. Does that mean that page was copyrighed?
Michaelas10 08:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The irony.
Copyright violation
editThat site is copyrighed.
This is NOT a copyright violation
editSupreme Court decisions are not copyrighted. They're in the public domain. The referenced webpage may assert copyright, but that is irrelevant. Just because a website slaps a copyright notice on uncopyrightable material does not mean they have a resulting copyright.
I could post The Bible on my website, slap a copyright notice on it, but that wouldn't make it copyrighted. The content is the test, not the inclusion of a copyright notice. If it's public domain material, as it is in this case, the copyright notice is irrelevant and void.
With that said, just slapping up the entire decision isn't an encyclopedia article. It's pointless. The article should summarize the case and point readers to the decision itself, which can be found on many websites.207.69.137.41 07:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect summation of case
editThe article prievously stated, "Stewart v. Abend was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the copyright owner's right to permit the creation of a derivative work passes to the heirs of the author of the work, who are not bound by the original author's agreement to permit such use."
This is not a correct statement of the case. The importance of this case has nothing to do with heirs. It has to do with the right of the copyright holder to control creation of and/or exploitation of derivative works. I have accordingly revised the summation of the case.207.69.138.10 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Who is Abend?
editThis article never explains who or what "Abend" was. A company? A person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.69.2 (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Unclear
editCan someone please explain what this case is about? How did it relate to the long-term inability to publish Woolrich stories, if it did, and the fact that Rear Window was not shown for years? I believe it is related, but that just is not clear in any specific way. I hope someone out there is still monitoring this article.--Stetsonharry (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)