Talk:George Bessolo Reeves

intellectual property rights...

In this edit, the now blocked vandal User:BoxingWear4 removed the {{db-copyright}} I put on this article, with the edit summary "fucking idiot u dont copyright content from free source, duh!"

Material contributors submit to the Wikipedia, and other WMF projects, is licensed, not "free". The license is very generous to re-users. Contributors allow the material to be re-used, edited, and so on, surrendering MOST of their intellectual property rights.

They retain the right to have their work properly attributed to them.

What form is required for this attibution? The lawyers wikipedia hired were of the opinion that all a third party had to do, to comply with the rights the original contributors retained, was to list all the names of all the people who worked on the article.

So, yes, re-using wikipedia content, without providing a list of all the wikipedia contributors, is a copyright violation. When I find an article like this, I give the contributor a grace period, to figure out how to comply. In this instance, I'll grant two weeks, to comply, before I erase the article. Geo Swan (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

THEN I LL MOVE IT TO BOXINGWEAR MY SPACE, NOT ITS NOT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION,SHOW ME PROOF ON THATA ASSHOLE FROM LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, DUH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoxingWear7 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia content is all licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode Geo Swan (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)`

SHUT THE FUCK UP DUMBFUCK,., I SAID LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROOF, NOT WIKIPEDIA VOMIT BS AS YOURSELF!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoxingWear8 (talk • contribs) 2024-05-24T09:13:11‎