[WikiEN-l] Knol - Our first major scandel

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>:
> Of course WP:OWN is not about legal ownership.  The two approaches
> remain irreconcilable, and if I were a defendant in such a case I would
> not hesitate to raise WP:OWN in evidence, making the point that it
> nevertheless taints legal ownership.  The burden of proof remains with
> the plaintiff.  Given that others can edit the passage, the defendant
> may well argue that this implies that the plaintiff does not have the
> "exclusive right" required by statute.  I think that most judges would
> prefer the simple argument.

The only thing WP:OWN has to do with ownership is the name, which is
clearly metaphorical. I'm pretty sure the law distinguishes between
ownership and control - you can give up some amount of control over
something without giving up ownership of it. What statute is it that
requires you to have exclusive rights to what?