Talk:Anti-copyright notice

This should probably be merged with Anti-copyright, which has a section that duplicates the use of this page. David Regev 13:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's the anti-copyright copyright notice: “This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.” - A certain troubadour, whose works later garnered claims of copyright from several different entities — Rickyrab | Talk 03:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the main article :) --Sanglorian (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Copyleft

A merger with copyleft was proposed, and continues to head the main article. However, the two are not synonyms, or even that close. Copyleft has a narrow definition, of a free, libre and open licence/resource with a share-alike requirement. Not all anti-copyright notices are free, libre and open or have a share-alike requirement; merging them would be a bad idea. --Sanglorian (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights

What human right does a law have to automatically restrict what a creator of work doesn't want restricted? If a work was created for example by an alien from another planet on that other planet, surely they don't need to have a copyright or anti-copyright notice - how can someone here who wants their product to be freely available for 'any' purpose including full commercialisation and non-accreditation by another party communicate that without having to create a stupid license or stupid copyright notice? --ZhuLien 116.240.194.132 (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires attribution

This article says:

For example, if just free distribution is encouraged, modification or lack of attribution is still illegal, making the material ineligible for collaborative writing projects like Wikipedia.

That is obviously false: not only does Wikipedia accept content that requires attribution, but all text contributions are cc-by-sa (requiring attribution). Some may be dual licensed or originally under a compatible license. (or PD) Anyway, lack of permission for modification is a blocker for Wikipedia use. --Jeremyb (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legally incorrect

"It is possible to denounce all claims to copyright in a work including moral rights in a written disclaimer." - Actually, it is not possible to denounce one's moral rights in every jurisdiction. Such article should be written considering there are other countries (and legal systems) in the world besides America. --82.131.126.168 (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-copyright notice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160324154539/http://ostatic.com/blog/the-unlicense-a-license-for-no-license to http://ostatic.com/blog/the-unlicense-a-license-for-no-license

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]