This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The UCC is a statute. Cornell is simply a free source for the text of the statute. There is no copyright in laws. The bot should be fitted with an exception to deal with laws. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 18:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the material from which the article is composed can primarily be found in the public domain. See, for example, California Commercial Code Section 1303. -- bd2412 T 19:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I am reluctant and sorrowful to have to say this, but the Wikipedia (WP) editors responsible for making and enforcing this policy are utterly ignorant of US copyright law. Furthermore, they are hampering the operation of WP by their wrong minded conception of copyright law and their edits resulting from it. A committee of WP lawyers (Law Committee?) or an outside counsel (perhaps pro bono volunteers from law schools might be willing to help)--having adequate knowledge of copyright law--should be formed (or engaged) and tasked with bringing WP's policies into line with the law as recognized by the courts. In addition, persons inexpert in copyright law should stop trying to foist their ill informed opinions about copyright on WP. As for the point at issue here: There cannot be any informed person in the US who believes the UCC is protected against reproduction in WP (or any other publication) because of copyright. Why not try calling up the US Copyright Office and asking? Thank you. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 20:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, to be fair to the original editor who proposed the Speedy, the proposition that a model code authored by a non-governmental entity loses its copyright as a result of being enacted into law is still a fairly controversial one. The Uniform Commercial Code was authored by the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, who jointly continue to claim copyright on it. There has been at least one case on this issue, Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, which decided 13-2 that a taking from an enacted law was not infringement, but we haven't seen much on the issue outside of the Fifth Circuit.
(My personal take is that when the copyright holder of a model statute offers it for enactment into law, it is estopped from asserting copyright against anyone who copies the law, at least in the form enacted; but no court has taken up my view.) TJRC ( talk) 23:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@TJRC: You are right about estoppel. Veeck is a nice case, but it is about a building code, not a regular model statute or the UCC where there is a very strong estoppel. But Greg Jack, and I guess BD too, are right in saying people who don't know copyright law should not make pronouncements about it. They just muck things up. I endorse 100% what Greg Jack said. I wrote something about this on the original delete proponent's talk page. Perhaps it should be here. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 02:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
[Moved][Copyright in UCC]
JL&N, I thought I would take this here from the talk page for Course of Dealing to lower the level of excitement. I don't know how to tell you this in a more polite way, but you guys are just wrong about copyright law. What BD said is right, and you are getting bad advice from somebody.
Cornell cannot possibly have a copyright interest in the UCC. I have been teaching copyright and patent law for 25 years at GW Law School in DC, and I don't know (and am pretty sure I have never known) any copyright scholar who would agree that Cornell has a copyright in the UCC. The UCC is a statute, a uniform law adopted in many states. You cannot have a copyright in that.
Cornell is simply lying if they say they have a copyright in the UCC. They are not its author and it was dedicated into the public domain about 40 or 50 years ago.
You need to get better legal advice if it is as you described it. Your current legal advice source is terrible if it is telling you that it is copyright infringement to copy statutory texts.
There must be Wikipedians who are US or UK copyright lawyers who will help you out if you need it on basic copyright law principles. I would. I am sure BD would, Ed Colins too. Probably Notecardforfree would. Greg Jack (Pickett) might. There are more. Thank you for your no doubt well intended contributions to WP. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 02:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
In those cases where the underlying texts are government documents, those texts lie in the public domain. The LII does not assert copyright in US Government works, but we do claim copyright in markup, navigation apparatus, and other value-added features of electronic editions of government publications.
That seems pretty reasonable of Cornell. Nothing wrong with their position. I agree with what you say, BD. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 21:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)