Talk:Copyfraud

message: Not sure it was covered by any secondary sources yet, but: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.270868/gov.uscourts.wawd.270868.1.0.pdf (via  ). Nemo 19:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for posting. But when was this filed, since there's no date or case# shown? It will obviously be a major copyright news story once the press becomes aware of it. --Light show (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very recent case, I think it was filed in the last week or two. Nemo 06:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an article, but it requires a subscription.  I agree that this story is likely to be picked up by the mainstream media, and we can wait for a major news outlet to report on it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The case is CixxFive Concepts LLC v. Getty Images Inc., no. 19-386, (filed March 15, 2019, W.D. Wash). The only coverage I've seen so far, though, is the Law360 article pointed to by Ssilvers, and a bunch of tweets/retweets (e.g. this). TJRC (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Hmmm.  The article basically says that the case is no big deal.  Unless the plaintiff prevails, I'd say that it's not essential to list.  In fact, I think we should reduce the list of cases to just those that have successfully established their copyfraud claims or are likely to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. We might reference the case for other aspects but that might be original research, so let's wait until the case proceeds and maybe some other publication (or at least law blog) writes about it. There's no hurry. Nemo 10:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyfraud case against Getty 

message: I don't know, whether this should be said here, but the article seems very US-centric, enough so to make me wonder whether this is an US-exclusively used term, but unsure whether it is supposed to be that way, or is it due to other sources being yet to be found/written in.
Also, the article feels very jumpy to read, as it seesaws between descriptions and "this person says this, that person says that" style of writing.
Please feel free to delete this comment/section if it's agreed to be unfounded.
89.229.234.151 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The term was coined by an American professor, but the article is not just about the term, it is about the concept, which would apply to misuse of copyright everywhere. As for the style issue that you see, why don't you suggest some improvements?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I'm not a competent (and practised) enough writer, to rewrite it while avoiding implying things by synthesis. Moreover because my English is a calque from European(mixed) English, and it includes several words and language concepts that are englishlike but aren't actually English. :| 89.229.234.151 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but if you point out particular sentences or paragraphs in the article that you think need improvement, I'll review them more carefully and see if I can smooth them out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality issues?