I would strongly support to not lend support to the believe that everything under the sun is copyrightable. We should, in my opinion, take the position that trivial things like these are not copyrightable and should put a CC0 on it. We should not set an example and establish a practice that single words can be copyrightable. At all. I think, by defaulting to that assumption, we support the idea that these things can be legally protected under copyright law, and by this we do a strong diservice to our actual mission.
Sorry for the rant and for the not-completely-on-topicness.
Cheers, Denny
2013/3/13 Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org
On 03/13/2013 03:17 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Why CC0 (public domain)? Your example (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fr-go%C3%BBter.ogg) is CC-BY, which is not public domain and requires attribution (which I think all Wikimedia projects do for text). I'd say CC-BY-SA or CC-BY would be a better default.
I am not sure about copyrightability of a pronunciation of a single word.
Neither am I, but if it's licensed under one of those and a court finds it's not copyrightable, so be it. It still seems reasonable to use an attribution license.
Matt Flaschen
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l