Talk:Copyright

"Ownership of articles" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ownership_of_articles&redirect=no Ownership of articles] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 06:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

US Centricity
Hello. I just created my account today, so please forgive any newbie mistakes :) I wanted to share my thoughts on this article:

The article seems very US-centric. Many sections explain general concepts of copyright and then provide specific examples of US implementation. While it's appropriate to include examples of US laws, it would be beneficial to expand the scope.

I especially feel that the section on Duration could benefit greatly from focusing on global durations. While many countries have the same duration as the US due to international treaties, the differences that do exist are what's actually important. DislekzticBoi (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Evolution of length of copyright is poorly covered
The article is very skimpy on the evolution of length of copyright. It does not say what was the length in the Statute of Anne, for example. One must read half the article to find that the period was initially 14 years in the US. Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"Intellectual property" is a very misleading term
Copyright is not property. Copyright is a monopoly right that is expressly limited in time, whereas property is permanent. Violating copyright is violating a monopoly concession, a business offense; whereas violating someone's property right is theft, a very serious crime. The reason why the term "intellectual property" came to be common in the late 1900s is because publishers want copyright to become permanent too, and its violators to be criminally prosecuted for theft. Wikipedia should be wary of helping that attempt at "legislation by lexicon". Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

singular they
[this is in regards to a dispute over the preferred phrasing in the "moral rights" section; the dilemma is between using "him/her" in a sentence, to match a singular antecedent, or "them"]. as can be seen by reading the wikipedia article on "singular they", the pronouns "they/them" can be used grammatically as singular pronouns. this usage is also present in the online oxford dictionary, under (they>meaning and use>1.2.b). finally, as I'm sure many are aware, some people are referred to neither by "he" nor by "she", which is why I see it valuable to use the more general "they". I accept that this disagreement won't be resolved by brute-force edit wars, which is why I won't reedit this again, but only ask that future edits on this issue be addressed under this topic and given full elaborations; this includes in particular, in the case of the previous edit, backing up the (implied*) claim that "they" should not be used as a singular pronoun. *I recognize that this is my subjective reading of the previous editor's edit description, and would appreciate being corrected if this was not (his/her/their) intention. SchwartzYosale (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)