Talk:US Copyright Law
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Contents |
[edit] Various
This is missing a key section about derivative works and what it takes to be considered a new work (cover of a song, translation etc.)--69.148.9.81 14:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Rights conferred by copyright is unclear we don't know well who have theses right (autor,buyer...)
there is also the fact that there are some case unclear... if you don't have a acopyright notice what happend?
[edit] Missing content
- Heading: Derivative works
- What are these?
- Examples of derivative works
- Derivative works in software; ways of integration between programs or modules; mere aggregation
- Heading: Mandatory deposit
- What is a mandatory deposit?
- What works are exempted from mandatory deposit?
- See the existing heading "Deposit"
- Heading: Sweat of the brow
- What is "Sweat of the brow doctrine"? (See also W:Sweat_of_the_brow.)
- Precedent case: W:Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service
--Dan Polansky (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] See if you can help...
There is a very verbose policy Wikibooks:Media that needs some tweaking. I have called the attention at the time of the proposal to factual errors.
I strongly disagree with the use of the phrase "Public domain works are works not protected by copyright laws or are ineligible for copyright protection." and also but with a minor degree have a strong distaste for the continued mislabeling of the Wikibooks GFDL policy as simply GFDL (this one may still cause us problems, it improbable, but any complain would have legitimacy, since any work that was clearly GFDL and is now using Wikibooks GFDL constitutes the relicensing of the work by an unauthorized party).
"Wikibooks GFDL" is used to distinguish that the project uses the GFDL with some restrictions (that is with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts ). --Panic (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Rename
I propose that we rename US Copyright Law to United States Copyright Law. There is no particular reason to use an abbreviation, and the latter seems more professional. –blurpeace (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
