Talk:copyright

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
"The copyright symbol ©, a circumscribed C. If © is the international symbol for copyright, what should we use for the open source symbol?" That usage example does not refer to the symbol but to the concept (hence the use of "symbol for copyright"). Equinox ◑ 16:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not come across this one. Having said that, if it does exist finding citations will be hard. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One might say “the copyright is on page ii,” but this would refer to a copyright notice or statement. —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 15:44 z 
 * The relationship is not 2-way (symmetric in the mathematical sense). The symbol means "copyright", but surely no-one would claim that the word "copyright" means the symbol, any more than "plus" means +    D b f  i  r  s   13:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–August 2017
It has two verb senses:


 * 1) To place under a copyright.
 * 2) To obtain or secure a copyright for some literary or other artistic work.

I don't think the distinction between them is very clear. Maybe a few citations would help. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not clear. I have added some cites that I think get at what this distinction is aiming for, but I could be wrong. Kiwima (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To me, the first definition appears to be the definition of a transitive verb, and the second definition appears to be the definition of an intransitive verb. Mihia (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Ok, it is now cited Kiwima (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's what the distinction is (if the distinction was meant to be transitivity, then we should merge the senses and label it as "transitive or intransitive"). Maybe it's actually who is doing the action. It seems that with the first definition, the subject would be the government, while with the second one the subject would be the author or owner of the work. But I'm not sure that's a necessary distinction to make, so perhaps even in that case they should be merged. --WikiTiki89 16:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think merging them is a good idea. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the two senses should be merged; there's no meaningful distinction between them, as the recently added quotations only serve to prove. BigDom 13:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have merged the two senses. This is RFV-resolved (although there are plenty of other entries where we consider transitivity enough reason for separate entries). Kiwima (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)