Conservapedia talk:Andy's Copyright Threats

Wait… he revoked our right to the material. That means… argh.

Wait, our commenting upon it falls under fair use. Awesome, we don't have to worry about that. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 21:40, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh, you already stated that. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 21:42, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Also I'm seriously doubtful about multiple authorship threads being able to generate a single copyright that's enforceable at law. I pulled some authority on it before I got real busy, but the gist of it looked like "Andy loses. Big time. In multiple different ways." I'll gist it for us when I get a chance. Damn interview week.-αmεσ (!) 22:05, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Doesn't his whole argument fall apart if the source is listed? Isn't that basically the purpose of a bibliography when writing a paper? Also, I find it funny that he's going on about copyright infringement when just about every article on CP is a cut&paste job. Jrssr5 11:23, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Just a side note since I stumbled across this... the only person that can ask for copyright infringement to be removed is the copyright holder. Unless Andy has started (and retroactively - oh man, wouldn't that be fun... having to contact all of the previous contributors and have them agree to a change of license or the removal of the material they added) having editors relinquish the copyrights of material that is submitted (and I bet that Creationwiki editors wouldn't be happy with that, nor Brent, nor Keny) to him... I don't believe he can do squat about take down requests. Though I am not a lawyer and my my musings here should not be considered legal advice. --Shagie 03:24, 10 September 2008 (EDT)