Jump to content

Talk:United States copyright law/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move all to Copyright law of Country. The in verses of issue is murky but looking at all opinions the weight seemed to favor of; I will create redirects for each in title and the issue can be revisited in a subsequent dedicated discussion if necessary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


United States copyright lawCopyright law in the United States – The top level copyright articles in Category:Copyright law by country are inconsistently named. As a result, we can not use {{South America in topic|Copyright law in}} to United States copyright law as a navbox (even if we added redirects, the current page will not be bold), nor can we add {{South America in topic|Copyright law in}} to Chilean copyright law. Other similar topics are named as "<topic> in (the) <country>".

Examples

I propose we use "Copyright in <nation>" or "Copyright law in <nation>", but I am more interested in a uniform naming convention. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_12#copyright_law and Template talk:Copyright law by country. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

  • So maybe rename everything to "Copyright in Foo" and create redirects for the "... of ..." and " ... law of ..." variants? (Copyright is a matter of law, so "copyright law" is perhaps slightly redundant anyway.)  Sandstein  15:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a consistent article naming convention across this (and other) topics. The proposed mass move is good, although I think the title should be 'of', not 'in'. And the title should include 'law', as the topic is copyright law. (Co-author of the NZ article.) --Pakaraki (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we should be emphasising "in" (jurisdiction) rather than "of" (nation) because copyright law is a bit of a special case, in that citizenship of the author is an important element of copyright law, and nationality might be a factor (?). We could write a very useful article about "[Worldwide] Copyright law [implications] for Australians [citizens]" describing how the works of Australians are protected in other jurisdictions, noting gaps in treaties, etc. We already have two articles which cover copyright from that angle: Afghanistan and copyright issues and Iran-United States copyright relations.
    Also, "Copyright of <nation>" wont work as the title "Copyright of the UK" strongly implies "Crown Copyright". John Vandenberg (chat) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I think we should go with Copyright law of < jurisdiction >. Copyright law in would tend to suggest that there is a single copyright, that just exists everywhere, instead of all the different copyright law that exist. Adding the "law" part would overcome John's issue, while the russian article would be correctly described "Copyright in Russia" . VeryRusty (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.