Talk:Legazpi Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Airports WikiProject

From Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements

• Legazpi Airport, [1] Dysprosia 08:55, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Not infringing for the US Wikipedia, online and in print. Under US law, it is ineligible for copyright protection because it is simply a collection of factual data and facts cannot be copyrighted, even if you go to a lot of trouble to compile them. The sweat of the brow approach has been ruled inapplicable by the Supreme Court. The site's copyright notice cannot apply to this data. A modicum of original creative thought is required before something is copyrightable and the data presentation here did not exhibit it. JamesDay 04:17, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Ok, cool - so the copyright notice that guy had on that website was invalid? Just curious, as I don't know very much about legal matters :) Dysprosia 04:19, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • It's valid but it only covers the material which is originally created by the site. It's routine for sites to have global copyright notices but they never apply to material they don't actually have the rights for. Another interesting case is where there's an accurate photograph of an ancient relic. Unless there's creativity in the lighting or scene somehow, it's not copyrightable, regardless of whether the photographer claims that it is. One reason why museums have "no camera" rules. Dealing with these claims and making decisions about how far you can exert your rights to use without undue risk of getting sued is where the law gets "interesting". Intellectual property law is anything but definitive. And that's on a good day.:) Life's a lot simpler for text, where we can rewrite to GFDL. It's why I seldom do much about text here - it takes more time to justify fair use than it does to rewrite.JamesDay 05:11, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)