[Wikipedia-l] Collection copyrights

[Ian]

IANAL, but in general we don't have as strong database type laws here in
the US. Database copyright rules get kind of distrubing because you start
getting into copyrighting information, instead of just expression.

Plus, everything is released under the GFDL and in a single
downloadable file, so I think the intention is that if someone wants to
they could mirror the whole thing. 

And Kurts right, unless you sign over your copyright everything you do is
your own, so the contributors of wikipedia all own their work released
under the GFDL.

Ian Monroe
http://ian.webhop.org

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Kurt Jansson jansson at gmx.net XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:

> Hi Axel!
> 
> > Just a quick clarification on collection copyrights: if you put
> > together a collection of materials, then you acquire a copyright in
> > your particular presentation of the collection, not in the materials
> > of the collection themselves.
> 
> Okay, but my question is: Does Bomis put together a collection of the
> articles, actively? I mean, Jimbo doesn't say: Okay, we'll take this
> article, it's good quality, but I'll keep that one out because it's
> complete nonsense (like a Linux distributor does).
> 
> You could perhaps say we all own the collection copyright (because
> everybody decides if an article is good or so bad that it should be
> edited/replaced/deleted). Or a collection copyright doesn't exist for
> Wikipedia, because it's just a source out of which people could create
> collections (e.g. printed encyclopedias).
> 
> But that's more my sense of justice than a funded knowing of the legal
> facts.
> 
> Bye,
> Kurt
> 
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>