Talk:Course of performance

Bot is mistaken

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)

PraeceptorIP, I'm not a lawyer, but Cornell doesn't agree. Please see the Site Documentation, which clearly states that the content is (a) copyright and (b) released under a CC-by-sa-nc 2.5 licence – and thus not allowable here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Cornell also has a page with the First Amendment on it, and includes the same site documentation clearly stating that the content is (a) copyright and (b) released under a CC-by-sa-nc 2.5 licence. Should you then seek to prevent Wikipedia from including the text of the First Amendment? bd2412 T 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

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)

I repeat, I'm not a lawyer. It's my understanding that at least part of our copyright policy is based on advice received from the Wikimedia Legal Team. If you think they are utterly ignorant, why not tell them so? And if you are so damned smart, why don't you do something about the backlog at WP:CP instead of passing snide remarks? Also, it may perhaps come as shock to you to know that not quite everybody is in the United States. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anyone on the Wikimedia Legal Team proposing that this page is a copyvio. bd2412 T 21:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Both Praeceptor and BD (and I) are lawyers. Praeceptor is an acknowledged expert on IP law, which includes copyright. BD practices in that field. But any lawyer would be able to tell you that the California Commercial Code is not copyright protected, despite what Cornell claims. It is public domain. This is part of the reason I left (and intend to stay gone from) WP, because people who don't have a clue about a subject are allowed to screw with subjects about which they lack sufficient expertise to edit. They should allow the content creators to do so without worrying about minutia. GregJackP Boomer! 23:10, 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)

This is true - but there is no argument that Cornell's Legal Information Institute can assert any kind of copyright interest in the UCC. Of course, where we write about any textual work, of course, it is often best to describe and paraphrase the work, rather than quoting at length from the work, even if this is permissible. bd2412 T 00:03, 1 April 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)

No, Veeck is on point. The building code at issue in Veecks was drafted by a non-government entity, the SBCCI, which claimed copyright; just as the UCC was drafted by non-government entities, the ALI & the NCCUSL, which claimed copyright. The building code was enacted into law by a number of cities, with some changes; just as the UCC was enacted into law by some states, with some changes. The only distinction between the two is that in one case the enacting bodies were cities, and in the other, states; but that's a distinction without a difference. TJRC (talk) 20:16, 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)

Cornell isn't lying, they are just being careless - they have the same link on every page in their LII database. bd2412 T 03:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

BD, I guess you are saying Cornell is merely engaging in negligent misrepresentation, not intentional misrepresentation. I would say it is at a minimum reckless misrepresentation. And reckless misrepresentation can be as culpable as intentional misrepresentation (as in the libel doctrine of NY Times v. Sullivan). Cheers. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I withdraw my charge. Cornell has a "Terms of Use" link rather than a copyright notice; the page that this link leads to does not assert a blanket copyright in LII contents; rather, it specifically states:

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.

In short, Cornell isn't even claiming copyright in the texts, just in their own added elements, which are obviously not copied here. bd2412 T 15:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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)