"AR" == Alex R alex756@nyc.rr.com writes:
AR> Ha, ha, very funny, bub-you. If it is just knowledge then it AR> would fall into the public domain as the expression would be AR> totally uncreative.
So, now I'm intrigued. What's "just knowledge"? I thought that even if you apply some selectivity -- as we do with Wikipedia, in deciding what's "encyclopedic" -- the collection is itself copyrightable? The phone book was brought up -- an unselective collection, ruled uncopyrightable by such-and-such a court. But I don't think that same metric would apply to Wikipedia.
However, I find it an interesting concept that individual articles might be so diluted as to be uncopyrightable. How can you have knowledge without some sort of explication -- a didactic expression of knowledge? Even if something is "just" factual, there must be some elaboration on those facts if they're rendered in prose form. The driest of police-ledger columns and science textbooks is copyrightable -- why would a Wikipedia article not be?
Not to mention that Wikipedia articles are not merely collaboratively assembled factual information, but rather a series of creative works created according to each contributors rights to authorize derivative works. Each individual version seems, to my uninformed eye, to be copyrightable and licensable (to the public and to the next contributor).
But I'm intrigued. I'd love to hear some examples of how this could happen.
AR> I don't think you don't have good comprehension skills.
That makes two of us.
AR> (BTW I am a entertainment lawyer,
Ewwwwwwww!
AR> I know what I am talking about, what are your qualifications AR> as a copyright expert?).
Appeal to authority, minus 7 flame warrior points.
~ESP