Talk:Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Error in note numbers

In the version current at the time of writing this, there was a curious error in the automatic numbering of the notes. In the infobox, the superscript [2] links to the note numbered 19; this throws out all the other notes in the range 3-18. I going to make a trivial edit to the page and save it again to see if this disappears. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It didn't, so I'll report this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate reference sections, one added manually the other generated from inline ref tags. Is there an easy way to fix this?Flannel 21:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC) I've found this tool : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PleaseStand/References_segregator#Converting_footnotes_to_list-defined_(LDR)_format which might be able to convert the footnotes to references, do any other editors have a thought on using this? Flannelot (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Confusion in the sub-section listing of 'Relevant Cases'

The six cases itemised would be better in date order (1871, 1916, 1934, 1994, 1995, 1995) rather than in alpha (where incidentally two are currently out-of-order as A&M, GRam, GOdf, Levy, Stewt, Univ). Also each should outline a different specific area of copyright ruling, and most (but not all) do that. But the first (the case of A&M-v-VCI 1995) does not describe any ruling - instead it summarises by asking four questions without giving any answers. It therefore seems incomplete (ie. no clear guidance for the reader). And the third case (Godfrey-v-Lees 1995) says the Claimant established joint authorship but was stopped from revoking the Defendant's licence due to a passage of time - followed by a fourth case (Levy-v-Rutley 1871) from over 100 years earlier (!) that defines the concept of joint authorship but spends half of its description on an exact repeat of the third case (Godfrey-v-Lees 1995) wording - while leaving out the third's crucial 'passage of time' failure. This ordering of the two cases (Godfrey followed by Levy) is like putting the "cart" ahead of the "horse-and-duplicate-cart-with-one wheel-missing". The whole section could/should be corrected or improved by better minds than me, ie. people with a specific knowledge of copyright law and its most relevant cases. But I'll make a start (else it may take weeks or months until someone else steps in), by revising the list-order and removing the duplicate text. Pete Hobbs (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Out of date sections:

S. 67 omitted (1.1.2011) by virtue of The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2694), art. 3(1)

S52 was omitted. Others may need checking. A comment on the implications or reasons for the amendment would be useful. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2010/2694 31 August 2020 (UTC) I've started reviewing some of these.Flannelot (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Peter pan 1911 pipes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)