This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the
Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Not infringing for the US Wikipedia, online and in print. Under US law, it is ineligible for copyright protection because it is simply a collection of factual data and facts cannot be copyrighted, even if you go to a lot of trouble to compile them. The sweat of the brow approach has been ruled inapplicable by the Supreme Court. The site's copyright notice cannot apply to this data. A modicum of original creative thought is required before something is copyrightable and the data presentation here did not exhibit it.
JamesDay 04:17, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ok, cool - so the copyright notice that guy had on that website was invalid? Just curious, as I don't know very much about legal matters :)
Dysprosia 04:19, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It's valid but it only covers the material which is originally created by the site. It's routine for sites to have global copyright notices but they never apply to material they don't actually have the rights for. Another interesting case is where there's an accurate photograph of an ancient relic. Unless there's creativity in the lighting or scene somehow, it's not copyrightable, regardless of whether the photographer claims that it is. One reason why museums have "no camera" rules. Dealing with these claims and making decisions about how far you can exert your rights to use without undue risk of getting sued is where the law gets "interesting". Intellectual property law is anything but definitive. And that's on a good day.:) Life's a lot simpler for text, where we can rewrite to GFDL. It's why I seldom do much about text here - it takes more time to justify fair use than it does to rewrite.
JamesDay 05:11, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Legazpi Airport. 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:
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.