You Wrote:
[about collection copyrights:]
There's a little more to it than that:
copyrights apply to "creative
expression", and "selection" of what to present is a creative act
specifically recognized (see Feist v. Rural).
Ok, but neither Bomis nor anybody else can claim a collection
copyright over Wikipedia in this sense, since nobody, and certainly
not Bomis, actively selects articles for presentation in a manner
that
could be called creative expression. Or maybe: we all
own tiny bits
of
the collection copyright in this sense, since we all
occasionly
reject
articles.
Actually, that's a very good argument that an infringer will
probably bring up if we ever sue one. We probably still have to
claim the copyright, or else the suit would never get past the
standing requirement. It's perfectly acceptable to make the
claim even if it won't hold up, and in fact failure to make a
claim can be detrimental.
So in short, I think you may be right, but I'm not going to change
the text of Wikipedia:Copyrights over it.
0