Thread:User talk:Ty/Why was my artidcle deleted?/reply (18)

You don't need to be a copyright lawyer to get a basic understanding of copyright law. There are ample resources on the Internet you could consult.

Confirming all legalities are complied with is simple - just look at the revision history of the page on CP. If the editor here is the only substantial editor to the CP article, or if they have reverted any substantial contributions by other editors in the version here, then legally it is fine. ("Substantial" is a pretty weak standard - obvious spelling or grammar corrections, slight rewordings, single word changes, are fine; anything much more than that won't be; if there is doubt, feel free to err on the side of caution.) Now I haven't actually applied these criteria to Andries contribution, but there is nothing that impractical about doing so.

CP's copyright disclaimer is not the best, yes; but it is not a copyright assignment, it is a license. None of its language suggests assignment - only licensing. For example, "By contributing information to Conservapedia, you irrevocably consent to the display, copying, reuse or editing of your information, edits and entries, with or without attribution." And, even if it said copyright assignment, that is legally impossible, since the terms explicitly state they are made under US law (see clause 3), and US copyright law says assignment is only valid if executed in writing with signatures (see 17 USC 204(a).