Talk:Copyright

"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)

The term is used regularly, especially in the legal profession. Copyrights are bought and sold, like other forms of property. For a discussion of criminal copyright infringement, see "High-Profile Cases of Criminal Copyright Infringement" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copyright&diff=prev&oldid=1329622668. Julian in LA (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Julian in LA This topic edges towards WP:NOTFORUM because IP is clearly the common-use term as of now, and that's not going to change on Wikipedia. However, formally, they were right that copyright is not a form of property; it is a quasi-property. They were also right that "IP" was not widely used until the 1990s, in connection to advocacy efforts like the CTEA. lethargilistic (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2024

change "In many modern day publications the terms copyright and authors' rights are being mixed, or used as translations, but in a juridical sense the legal concepts do essentially differ." to "In many modern-day publications the terms copyright and authors' rights are being mixed, or used as translations, but in a juridical sense the legal concepts do essentially differ." Ctheorya (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for catching this! :) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Copyright originality

Can someone find out a brief way to explain the u.s originality of copyright? Like “In the U.S it went a different route. The U.S Supreme Court ruled that there must be a spark of creativity and independently created. It would be note worthy as the U.S is the only country that went that way.WikiGrower1 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2026

Change "Jeffrey Olivar Alda (born 1981)" to "Jeffrey Olivar Alda (born May 24, 1981)" ~2026-74074-5 (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Change "Jeffrey Olivar Alda (born 1981)" to "Jeffrey Olivar Alda (born May 24, 1981)" Source: [Name of publication, date, link]

Change "Jeffrey Olivar Alda (born 1981)" to "Jeffrey Olivar Alda (born May 24, 1981)" Source: [Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 24, 2021, link]

Change "Jeffrey Olivar Alda (born 1981)" to "Jeffrey Olivar Alda (born May 24, 1981)" Source: [Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 24, 2021, link] ~2026-74074-5 (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: I believe you have posted this at the wrong talk page. The text you want to change does not appear in the article. Day Creature (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2026

FLC GPO ~2026-89487-7 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Edit Request: Update DOI for "Understanding Copyright and Related Rights"

The DOI / ISBN for "Understanding Copyright and Related Rights" currently lead to a cyrillic version of the report. The English variant might be more suitable? This is currently ref. no. 45.

Information for the English variant: DOI: https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.28946 ISBN: 9789280527995 Lanuaris (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Lanuaris  Done good catch. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)