This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nyttend (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 2 October 2013 (→Your recent revert comment of copyright notice.: Response to you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:06, 2 October 2013 by Nyttend (talk | contribs) (→Your recent revert comment of copyright notice.: Response to you)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| "You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you. |
|---|
 Talk page archives Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 Archive 28 • Archive 29 • Archive 30 Archive 31 • Archive 32 • Archive 33 Archive 34 • Archive 35 • Archive 36 Archive 37 • Archive 38 • Archive 39 Archive 40 • Archive 41 • Archive 42 Archive 43 • Archive 44 • Archive 45 Archive 46 • Archive 47 • Archive 48 Archive 49 • Archive 50 • Archive 51 Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 |
Your recent revert comment of copyright notice.
For User:Nyttend. Your recent revert comment for the copyright notice on one of the Theodicy pages referred to criteria for copyright violation. Are you presenting yourself as someone who has read the book? Or are you presenting yourself as a Senior Copyright Admin? The history of two-word copyright and trademark violations is so extensive that your comment on the Talk page alone is ambiguous. Please clarify. Similarly for your comment on "fair use" which normally requires the first use of a copyrighted phrase or sentence (Macmillan Palgrave, Copyright (c) renewed 2010) to be fully attributed, which at present Wiki is claiming and asserting as its own. Please clarify. (Preview: http://www.amazon.com/Evil-God-Love-John-Hick/dp/0230252796/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380551005&sr=1-1&keywords=john+hick+evil). 209.3.238.61 (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please read 17 U.S.C. § 107, which appears at the Fair use article; there's no legal requirement that the "Macmillan Palgrave, Copyright (c) renewed 2010" bit be quoted. Please also read the first part of my statement, which notes that the fair use defense would only be needed if a two-word phrase were copyrightable, which it isn't. Let me remind you that "Macmillan Palgrave, Copyright (c) renewed 2010" is more than twice as long as "Augustinian theodicy", so if the latter be a copyright infringement, the former definitely is; <irony>I suppose I should block you for copyright infringement if I weren't already involved here</irony>. Finally, please note that I'm an administrator, and part of my "job" is removing speedy deletion tags that aren't applicable; I'm not a lawyer, but I've learnt enough about copyright as a librarian that I know that two words aren't original enough to attract copyright. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)