Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge: > >> 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?
17USC501 begins "Anyone who violates any of the *exclusive rights* of the copyright owner..." One could have fun with this in court. :-) Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
