Talk:Copyright

This page is for discussion of the particular contents of the Copyright article, or for straightforward questions about copyright. This article is not the place for:

heated debates about the merits of copyright (See Talk:Copyright/is copyright worthwhile?.)
explication or discussion of Wikipedia's copyright policies (See Wikipedia:Copyrights, or, for more informal discussion, see Wikipedia:Copyright issues.)

... but a link to wikipedia:copyrights from the page seems appropriate. (goes to check the Talk archive...) +sj + 03:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Old contents of this article can be found at Talk:Copyright/archive.

To-do list:

(Moved to To-do list)

If you want to talk about "lax" copyright protection in some countries, it'd be best done in the context of IP as a whole. I'm thinking specifically of China - the problems aren't confined to just copyright, but also patents and TMs - David Stewart 04:33 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Prominent advocates of international copyright law regression/removal:"

"Prominent advocates of international copyright extension:"

This terminology seems inherently POV. What is considered regression? What is extension? All these people have ideas beyond just that of extending or reducing the term of copyright. anthony (see warning) 16:13, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, I'll debate most of your recent changes, but one thing that is not up for debate is that you are not one of the world leaders in copyright reform advocacy.Markvs 17:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I never claimed I was. anthony (see warning)

Contents

1 Images of public domain objects

2 See also

3 Intro paragraph

3.1 "Intellectual property" considered non-neutral

4 Specific Electronic Form

5 Photographic Copyright

6 Copyrighting Mickey Mouse?

7 WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

8 Cleanup and question

9 Request for references

10 Dialogue with User:WB2

11 Heraldry

12 Artificial barrier

Images of public domain objects

scan of a public-domain photo

To what extent is an image of a public domain object copyrightable? For example, suppose I take an image accurately representing the Mona Lisa. Can I copyright it? How about an accurate scan of the image on the right, taken in 1896 (by Roentgen)? The source claims to have copyright on this, but it seems like there is no creative expression involved in producing an acuurate scan of an object.

On the other hand, a photo of a public domain sculpture seems like it is copyrightable; can one have independent copyright on a photo of a copyrighted sculpture? --Andrew 14:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

U.S. lower federal courts (though not yet the Supreme Court) have held that an accurate image of a public domain picture is not copyrightable because it is not sufficiently original. The more that it deviates from that accuracy, whether from accident or design (such as through a hand-tracing of the Mona Lisa rather than a photograph or scan), the more that it may be independently copyrightable, but the protection would still only extend to the original elements that were added to the particular image, not to the underlying public domain image, so the copyright would not likely cover more than verbatim copying.

As far as photos of public domain sculptures, the result is basically the same--the protection extends to whatever original elements that were introduced by the photographer, but cannot extend to prevent others from photographing the same subject.

In other words, the scan to the right is not eligible for copyright protection under U.S. law. However, other jurisdictions don't necessary require originality in the same way and degree that the U.S. does, so the answer may change depending on which nation's laws you are considering. Postdlf 17:27 17 June 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! Does it make sense to add this information to the article? I know the article shouldn't be too Wikipedia-centric, but this seems like good general knowledge. --Andrew 15:02, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would add it, but I don't know how much it reflects copyright law generally rather than just U.S. copyright law. I don't know that other jurisdictions are as strict on the originality requirements as we are, though I also can't really see copyright law functioning without such a requirement. Postdlf 18:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It'd be useful for this issue to be addressed somewhere, perhaps United States copyright law, with mention of scanning as an example. A-giau 22:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

"Copyright, like the other forms of intellectual property law, such as patents, and trade secrets, does not grant a monopoly right to the use of an invention, merely a right to prevent others doing it." Could someone explain what that sentence is trying to say, and why it is correct? Copyright and patent are monopoly forms of IP, because they prevent EVERYONE from using them, while trademarks normally only prevent competitors from using them. But I don't even know how "monopoly right" is being defined here if the right to prevent others from exploiting it is given as a contrast rather than as a feature. Postdlf 16:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"a right to preclude others from doing it" is not particularly good wording. Basically I have the same question. ;Bear 16:49, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

As I understand it, being able to prevent other people from using a thing is having a monopoly. That part of the introduction sounds like patent nonsense. Thue | talk 19:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The proper contrast to make is between trademarks, which normally prevent only competitors from using them as product source indicators, and only as long as the mark hasn't been abandoned due to lack of use, and the monopoly right of copyrights and patents, which prevent everyone else from using them for whatever purpose (aside from limitations such as fair use), regardless of whether the author actually makes use of the works himself. Can someone figure out a concise but proper way of rewording/explaining this, and make the proper changes? Postdlf 20:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I reworded and expanded. I have explained copyright and contrasted against patents, but only mentioned trademarks. Thue | talk 21:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

With some good help from User:Paranoid, trademarks are now also folded into the introduction. What do you think? :) Thue | talk 21:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Barnhorst edited out the comment that a patent grants a monopoly on an idea [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Copyright&diff=4879480&oldid=4879370). In my understanding, and from the intro paragraph at patent, patents do grant a monopoly. Comments? Thue | talk 16:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He also removed the paragraph ([2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Copyright&diff=4880055&oldid=4879579))

For example, if A were the first person to invent a spoon then A could get a patent on spoons, which means that nobody could make spoons without permission from A. If spoons were not patentable and B designed a spoon with a unique look, B would get a copyright on his design, meaning that nobody could copy the way Bs spoons looked without Bs permission.

contrasting copyrights and patents. As many people confuse copyright and patents I think it is appropriate to have this example in the introduction. No reason was given in the edit summery; why was it removed? Thue | talk 16:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to remove it—I was intending to do something to it myself. I don't think it is a very clear or helpful illustration, and it didn't flow right from the intro. I think a contrast between copyright and other IP forms is proper, but in fact those two forms differ most on subject matter rather than how their protection operates, and this is mostly bound up in the idea/expression dichotomy. Patents cover ideas and processes, while copyrights cover particular expressions of ideas. Both entail monopoly rights (with limits) over their respective protected subject matter. Postdlf 16:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The spoon example is a bad one, in my opinion, particularly because the copyrightability of useful articles is not a simple area of copyright law. Your example glosses over the noncopyrightability of utilitarian features (which may nonetheless be unique), and the difference between over-all design and severable, superfluous design elements, not to mention that it also implicates trade dress. Examples need to be simple, but not by submerging relevant issues that are necessary to really understand them. Postdlf 16:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thue | talk 18:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The main reason for my edit is that neither Copyrights nor Patents give the positive right to use your invention, only to exclude others. There are many patents, for instance, that are completely dependent upon some other patented item--so the owner of the patent can't use the invention without permission from the holder of the other owner (this usually leads to cross-licensing). I agree my original wording was bad, as I was rushed, so I hope my newer version is better. My reason for cutting out the spoon example was that it actually wasn't an example supporting copyright, but design patents. Finally, Copyright only gives a limited monopoly at best, because of "fair use" among other reasons. --Barnhorst 18:12, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I see your point about patent not giving the right to use an idea unconditionally in all cases because it may be covered by other patents. But couldn't we just ignore that as a special case, and use my original formulation anyway? I think it would be nice to give a word or 2 about patents as opposed to copyright. Thue | talk

Actually, copyrights may be covered by other copyrights in the same way—derivative works may be based on earlier copyrighted works, so that if you don't own the copyright in the original you're forbidden from exploiting the derivative you have just made. But that isn't to say that copyrights and patents don't give you the affirmative right to use your own creations—it's just that in those cases, your work is limited to what you add on. It's a limited case of when the right to use your work may conflict with the right of someone else to keep you from using theirs, when the two aren't separable. The monopoly description is appropriate even with exceptions such as fair use, to contrast copyrights and patents from the very limited protection of trademarks, in which the protection of the mark itself is more the exception rather than the rule. Patent protection is the closest form of IP to copyright. Postdlf 20:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We can certainly contrast copyright and patents, but the way to do it is on what they cover. Copyright is one way of expressing an idea and not utility (which is why so many people think copyright shouldn't protect software). Design patents are a particular design or ornamental shape, utility patents a way of doing something useful (although not a natural truth), and plant patents specific plants. There are nuances in the particular rights and length of protection, but patents only grant a monopoly as far as copyright does (very similar, actually), so the one word I have the most problem with in the original into is "unlike".--Barnhorst 20:19, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Another problem with the intro paragraph—Mickey Mouse as a cartoon character is copyrighted too—individual characters may be copyrighted rather than only trademarked, independent of any particular film, book, etc. The example is otherwise confusing and not appropriate for the intro—it seems to be mostly talking about the idea/expression dichotomy, by stating that anyone can make a movie with a talking mouse, just not one with Mickey Mouse. Postdlf 17:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I think the intro's good now. It sets up all the main issues of copyright that are discussed later in the article. I think the article itself needs some substantial reorganization, however, and likely some rewriting. I'm wary of tackling it all myself, however, because my studies have consisted almost exclusively of U.S. copyright law, and this article of course needs to deal with copyright generically, but I'll see what I can do. Postdlf 18:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a question about the last edit to the intro—how is the term "intellectual property" non-neutral? Copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc., are by definition forms of intellectual property protection. This is how courts address them, how legal scholars describe them, and how they are taught in law school. Whether or not some think there should be such a thing as intellectual property is an entirely separate issue of whether or not intellectual property actually exists as a coherent legal concept. The simple fact is that copyright is a form of intellectual property. Postdlf 07:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Intellectual property" considered non-neutral

I think using the phrase "Intellectual property" in this article transgresses the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Many people do not accept the phrase as having any useful meaning. While copyrights, patents, trademarks and so on are explictly defined in law, "intellectual property" is not and people use the term to group together things which operate in very different ways. This controversy is covered more thoroughly in the intellectual property article and elsewhere on the web. It is quite straightforward to talk about copyright and how it differs from trademarks and patents without using such a nebulous term. This has nothing to do with believing in the merits of copyright or otherwise. Oska 07:29, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

IP may be a flawed concept, but it is not nebulous in that we know that it refers collectively to the legal protections of copyright, patent, trade secrets, and trademarks—this is the norm in the legal profession, and copyright is after all a legal term. Whether or not the concept or phrase of IP is problematic is beside the point—it is how copyright is best classified. I think western legal concepts of property overall are flawed, whether physical or intellectual, and that ownership of land is just about as ridiculous as ownership of a creative work—both just depend on your ability to use the law to punish others from doing something to something else in a way you don't like. These flaws don't render use of the term POV, because simply using it to describe a class of legal protection doesn't pass judgment on the merits of the concept, any more than describing Bush43 as the President of the U.S. signals approval of Bush v. Gore and the voting process in Florida. Many believe that Bush did not legitimately assume the office (I would be one), but does that mean that it makes sense to call the very use of the term "President Bush" POV? The problem is solved by including the critiques in the copyright and IP articles—nothing is accomplished by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that these terms and classifications aren't generally used and accepted. Postdlf 07:54, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, the problem is solved by including a critique of the term in the intellectual property article, as already exists. Perhaps you could have taken the time to read it before reverting my edit in less than quarter of an hour. Bringing discussion of the controversial term into the copyright article does not help the reader who simply wants to know about copyright. This article treats a subject which is real through being defined in law. Using the term "intellectual property", which is nebulous in that it is nowhere legally defined and thus allows a great elasticity in interpretation, does not help this article stick to dealing with a real entity in a factual and disinterested way. Oska 08:21, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

I did read it, and nothing in the critique is a reason why the term should be excluded as a POV descriptive here. Perhaps we shouldn't use the term "copyright" either, because calling it a "right" implies that it is more than an arbitrary legal grant by the government to a preferred class of persons, and it involves far more than just the "right" to "copy". I don't know if you are in law or not, but I don't believe there is a single legal concept or term that doesn't have its opponents among legal scholars—one of the profs at my school believes that the concept of "rights" is meaningless, and the use of the term always misleading because it carries with it connotations that are contrary to how "rights" actually function in law and government. Plus there are plenty of people in every academic field who think that the English language itself is POV in many ways, such as due to gender bias. The simple fact is that wikipedia can't place itself in the vanguard of purging language and relabelling concepts that are problematically titled—it should observe current practice but record the critiques. And the current universal practice is to classify copyright as a species of "intellectual property". Judges and other government officials use the term without comment, law schools organize curriculum under it, law firms describe their practice areas with it. I express no judgment as to whether IP should be abandoned as a term, but the simple fact is that it hasn't by far, and an encyclopedia should observe common usage.

Finally, you claimed that IP is "nowhere legally defined."

Intellectual property 1. A category of intangible rights protecting commercially valuable products of the human intellect. The category comprises primarily trademark, copyright, and patent rights, but also includes trade-secret rights, publicity rights, moral rights, and rights against unfair competition. 2. A commercially valuable product of the human intellect, in a concrete or abstract form, such as a copyrightable work, a protectable trademark, a patentable invention or a trade secret. The abbreviation is ‘I.P.’

Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition) at 813. Postdlf 12:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Specific Electronic Form

I have seen a number of web sites claiming copyright on "specific electronic form" of otherwise public domain works. Typically the form is plain text. An example is the large collection of historical documents at fordham.[3] (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/fairuse.html) The copyright claim is asserted in section II.

From my perusal of the page, this would seem to be a copyright type that is not discussed. Or, did I miss the relevant section. Does anyone know if this copyright claim is legitimate? If so, a discussion might be worth adding to the page. Specifically, could I legally just cut and paste the public domain works the kind professor has transcribed (not asking about ethics here).

The question occurred to me for obvious reasons, being on the wikipedia & wikisource. But it seems to be a relevant question for this article as well.Wolfman 01:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See the section above on scanning public domain images—the issue is pretty much the same for public domain text. You're quite free to copy and paste whatever text is not protected on the site. What the "specific electronic form" may refer to is how the text has been formatted to appear on their website, which if it's plain text, I can't see what that would actually include. It might refer to their database as a whole, too—the selection and arrangement of the public domain texts—though some courts have been reluctant to give protection to electronic databases, because the information isn't really arranged in a clear form like it would be in a print anthology. And it's also quite likely that they just slapped a copyright notice on it without even bothering to research whether or not they actually had anything that was copyrightable, just in case there was. I don't think there are any legal restrictions on doing that, especially since it is easy to mistakenly believe that something may be copyrightable when it isn't.

I haven't added any of this information to the main article because I'm not sure how general it is—my understanding of it comes solely from U.S. copyright law. Though all jurisdictions (to my knowledge) have a public domain, the requirements on originality differ, which would increase or decrease the amount of additions one would have to make to a public domain work in order to have a copyright on the new "version." The U.S. also gives less protection to databases than many other countries. Finally, I am unsure how moral rights under European law may come into play, namely whether there might be a right of source attribution even for public domain works, when copied verbatim from a particular source. Postdlf 14:16, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Photographic Copyright

This is probably a question everybody but me knows the answer to: How long after publication of a book in the UK are its photographs subject to copyright laws, specifically can photos from a book published in UK before 1920 be uploaded to Wikipedia. Giano 11:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighting Mickey Mouse?

Copyrights do not protect ideas or facts, however, but only the particular expression of an idea. A copyright on the cartoon character Mickey Mouse, for example, would not prevent others from creating talking mice, but only from too closely copying the character and traits of that talking mouse in particular.

In my understanding, Mickey Mouse cannot be copyrighted. However, Mickey Mouse can appear in, say, a drawing, which might bear a copyright notice, but it is the drawing that is copyrighted, not the character. The reason you can't just put Mickey Mouse into your own cartoon is not that the mouse is copyrighted but that the mouse is trademarked. It is useless to talk about a "copyright on the cartoon character Mickey Mouse" because such a copyright cannot exist. I would have deleted this entire paragraph, however, I want to retain the opening sentence, which would then need to be worked in with the rest of the text. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

The article needs this section: Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents, standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources. [4] (http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/comm106/106copy.html#what%20IS%20NOT%20PROTECTED%20BY%20COPYRIGHT) OneGuy 06:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup and question

I was reorganising the 'critique of copyright' section (in good faith, and I hope my changes are considered positive). I have one question about how to interpret the following, which I left alone as a result:

It can be argued that, rather than criminalise the many millions of file sharers around the world who now routinely use the internet to breach copyright (given that copyright laws have proven unenforceable), copyright holders use the legal system to apply extortion by charging for products that are readily available for free

Obviously, this is saying that they do something instead of criminalising the file sharers. But is it saying they do use the legal system to apply extortion, or that they should do so as a valid profit model that avoids criminalisation?

If it's the former, I don't know how this sentence holds together. They have criminalised the file sharers, they just aren't very good at enforcing it. And I'm a little dubious about the latter, because 'extort' is not a phrase typically used in a white-hat proposed profit model. :) -- Wisq 01:55, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Taxman&action=edit&section=new) when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Dialogue with User:WB2

Are we going to be allowed to edit the "Copyright" page itself, or is Novacatz, an unregistered user, going to be allowed to delete anything that he wants to – claiming that your addition is somehow vandalism? WB2 07:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Your addition is vandalism—it really deals with irrelevant matters to the subject, it's written in the spirit of heated advocacy, and it makes very little sense. Postdlf 07:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant? What I said is WHAT the copyright law is all about: protecting rights to ownership; and MOST everyone out here that I know still feels that somehow, if they just put a copyright to something, then it belongs to them.

I think they have a right and a NEED to know what the facts are, rather than for them to go ahead and copyright something, and then get sued for plagerism or grand larceny later on.

I know, I've sued people before, and they all think the same stupid thing.

Your article cannot be a NPOV, as you say, if all sides aren't presented; what's the problem?

WB2 08:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Advocacy? How so? Advocating what, Freedom of Speech?

Yeah you're right, I am advocating Freedom of Speech, and as my advantage is out here in the home of Wikipedia, I'll be voicing it to the people over here too.

WB2 08:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Requires all sensible and academically significant sides to be presented. The more I read what you were trying to insert, the more it's clear that your concerns about surveillance and "render[ing] 'certain individuals' in the community 'persons of no value'" have absolutely no connection to copyright, nor are they written in the form of an academic explanation. Perhaps you should wait until you've clarified your thoughts better, or perhaps found a legal resource to cite from? Postdlf 08:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

O.K., but you don't know these people [who do this stuff].

Talking to them is like catching somebody redhanded: you've got to "ahem" a lot; but I'll get the cites, it's just that I though the internal links took care of all the cites already like California's Penal Code Sec. 630 et seq [California Envasion of Privacy Act], United States Code Sec. 1951 [Extortion, Definition], Title 17 United States Code Copyrights Sec. 204(a) [Copyrights, Ownership], etc.

WB2 08:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"These people" who do what "stuff"? And invasion of privacy and extortion simply are not issues pertaining to a discussion of copyright. Where did you get the idea that they were relevant here? Postdlf 08:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Invasion of Privacy, as it pertains to theft of intangible intellectual property ...

Like I said, you don't know these people [out here in California and in Music] who do these things – they get desperate, they steal, etc. – its a common thing in Music and Entertainment, and those who are directly involved in those fields know exactly what I'm talking about, but not people like you who only see the hype.

It's exactly like Eminem, for example, says on one of his albums: "that's why your lyrics show up on my s***."

If we're talking about copyrighting things, then its implied that there is some kind of theft going, sir, that's one of the main reasons for copyrighting; but it is true that the idea of theft of intellectual property prior to its being placed into a "tangible medium" isn't dealt with that often, and when it is its known as "eavesdropping" or "grand larceny" or "extortion" if an entity such as the Entertainment Industry Developement Corporation (EIDC) out here in California gets involved.

Most songs that you here on the radio are stolen from other artists long before they're copyrighted, and that's common knowledge to anyone in Music or the Entertainment Industry, its just that its very difficult to sue these people who always tend to steal from the very poor or destitute.

Further, the incentive is so high to steal, with the millions upon millions of dollars floating around in the Entertainment Industries, that often times the Mafia or police department itself gets involved and literally threaten, place under false arrest, and even murder those who get dissatisfied or threaten to snitch.

You should see them out here every day "protecting" the celebrities, but whose to protect us from them?

The legal Maxim involved is the following ...

A piratis et latronibus capta dominium non mutant ~ Things captured by pirates or robbers do not change their ownership ~ which basically means that, as it applies here to "invasion of privacy" and "extortion", just because you have quickly gone over to the copyright office and copyrighted those lyrics that you swear are your own, doesn't mean that you own the copyright if you had eavesdropped, tape recorded without permission, or took diction without permission the words that you used to make your song with of another individual.

Just simply copyrighting something doesn't get you "home free" and I feel that it is necessary to include that with any definition of "copyright" per se , since most of the poeple I deal with are fresh out of highschool and have no idea of exactly what the law says.

Well, that's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it – to inform the general population of what the facts are?

I hope this answers your questions as to the pertinence of intellectual property theft and its relation to copyright.

What issues you're referring to are dealing with the question of tangible as opposed to intangible properties, and those distinctions are quite clearly made in the copy right law, but that only after it is placed in a tangible medium can it actually be copyrighted; but like I said, if Mr Jesse Feder over at the Copyright Office finds out or is informed that what had been copyrighted was stolen, he is supposed to annull that copyright.

Theft and copyright go hand in hand, how can you say these two issues don't relate to each other? WB2 23:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, government (or civilian) abuses of privacy are a serious concern, although they don't really relate to copyright, which is only about material meant for publishing. It sounds like your ideas would find a more receptive audience on a blog, designed to sway and inform people of important new ideas rather than just reporting neutral background ideas as we're trying to do here. At a minimum, especially for a polished article like this one, work out the details on the talk page first to clear up grammatical and factual errors; for instance, I think you meant National Security Agency instead of National Services Administration. Lunkwill 10:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll look it up, but being "neutral" means publishing all sides, and if you are leaving out the correction of a common misconception, then the full definition hasn't been placed forward.

Has nothing to do with "swaying" an opinion, it has all to do with informing people of all the facts, which for some reason you and Mr Postdlf seem to be having problems with.

Being "neutral" does not mean "maintaining the status quo" and being little lambs that politely jump over their fences and go back to their stables so that they can nicely be slaughtered.

Telling only one side of a story, or hiding an important portion of a definition is a violation of neutrality since it seeks only to present those things the author wnats you to see as opposed to what the reader might have wanted to know about.

The lack of neutrality by way of selective editing also known as propaganda is also a serious concern, and as I understood, has no place here at Wikipedia.org or am I mistaken?

Do you all here actually represent an entity that is attempting to brainwash the readers of the Internet, because that is what you are doing if a complete definition isn't forwarded?

WB2 23:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

And the 17 Minute Gap (the giant sized white area in the intro paragraph above the TOC) looked ugly too

WB2 07:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, please reread the Vandalism page, my re-edit of the front page here of Copyright does not constitute Wiki Vandalism

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad faith edits that do not make their bad faith nature explicit and inarguable, are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.

WB2 07:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That's as it may be, but Novacatz obviously did not know it was a 'good faith' edit at the time. I also agreed when I reviewed his change at the time (as I review my watchlist regularly), even if I know it was good faith now.

That being said, I had trouble making heads or tails of that edit. But the first thing I noticed was its extremely informal style and massive use of all-caps for emphasis. This in particular is not Wikipedia style, and even replacing the caps with italics for emphasis would still be excessive. The informal style includes all the various colloquialisms like "insane ramblings", "you da man", etc., and is also generally not proper style. Some may also constitute POV in that they pass strong judgement without qualification of who or why.

Second, it really didn't seem to have anything to do with copyright, but rather with eavesdropping, fraud, taking someone's words out of context, etc. I could be wrong here (again, I still have trouble figuring out what it's saying), but it seemed to be entirely about what copyright is not, and could probably have been summed up in a single paragraph, if not a single sentence — if it belongs in Copyright at all.

Finally, the whole thing does seem fairly POV; that is to say, whether or not it's true (I don't know enough to say), it's seems like it's trying extremely hard to drive a viewpoint home. I don't know if this was the intent or not, but NPOV is not about emphatically expressing all sides; it's about neutrally reporting facts, or all opinions if the facts are disputed.

That's not to say your issue is unwelcome on the page. Once I am certain what your issue is and how it relates to copyright, I could render an opinion on that. But the text would have to make both of those clear, too, and I don't think the original text did. -- Wisq 13:18, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

POV would dictate a need to remove truth; as the saying goes, "the truth will set you free."

I've been doing lyrics for some 40 years and I know what people need to hear: the truth.

I understand your style manual, etc. – we use the California Style Manual out here – but for you to edit a very important part of the Copyright Law: 17 USC Copyrights § 201, House Report No. 94-1476 [ownership]: is akin to coming in here and just deleting things as you please.

Everyone (in Music) knows who Morris Levy, Peter Tripp, Alan Freed, and Dick Clark were and the scandals surrounding the Payola cases of the late 50's and early 60's; I think its important to leave this info in there.

Also, its hot news. Don Henley, formerly of The Eagles (we need semi-bold for names or titles in italics), was sued by several members of his entourage for allegations of slavery.

Refusing ownership to things someone else has stolen is very much the issue in copyrights.

The things that you can or cannot copyright, legally, that's the issue; not what happens after you copyrighted it.

You can't justify your definition here if you're hiding an important part of it.

WB2 06:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heraldry

It might be interesting to distinguish the quasi-intellectual property protection afforded heraldic representations (coats of arms, &c.), in jurisdictions where such protection exists, from the form of protection afforded by copyright. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Artificial barrier

The latest changes (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright&diff=14066594&oldid=14063156) seem to be (mostly) technically correct but POV anti-copyright. There's "artificial barrier", "expressions would be able to flow freely in the absence of government", "government does not necessarily carry any moral authority", "the backlash against the idea of copyright", etc.

I fixed one part that directly contradicted the article, but I'm not touching the rest due to lack of specific knowledge. I'm not sure if these belong in the article as they stand; I suspect they could be significantly shortened, and their presence in the first paragraph shortened to

A copyright is a form of intellectual property, enforced by the goverment, which secures to its holder . . .

While I am anti-intellectual-property myself, frankly, all ownership is enforced by the government. The only thing that says I have property and that someone can't come along and take it is my country's laws. If my country also says that my expressions of ideas are my property, that's just a (less universally agreeable) "artificial barrier" to theft, and we have plenty of those already. I may or may not agree, but "in the absence of government", I think we'd have too many problems to be engaging in free-flowing expression anyway. -- Wisq 14:35, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Copyright"