>>>> "AR" == Alex R
<alex756(a)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
--
Evan Prodromou <evan(a)wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel -
http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide