Talk:Reverse discrimination (EU law)

Prologue

Please select one license only. The document can't be both released under a Creative Commons license and released into the public domain. Choose one or the other. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

https://irelandsreversediscrimination.wordpress.com/2022/05/16/745/

is this what you want Sean4780 (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

All associated posts have been deleted from https://irelandsreversediscrimination.wordpress.com/ There is no copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean4780 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1087447326&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Firelandsreversediscrimination.wordpress.com%2F Result Violation Unlikely 0.0%

The page is still copyright, and is still visible as it was archived by the Wayback Machine.— Diannaa (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Well that is copyright infringement by Wayback Machine, they are not the original author.

How can Wayback Machine have copyright for web pages it archived ?

What legal advice did you receive telling you that Wayback Machine has copyright over the entire internet ? Sean4780 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the Wayback Machine’s Copyright Policy?

The Internet Archive respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others.

=======================================

Wayback machine do NOT declare they have copyright of the entire internet. Sean4780 (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

No, but something there is still copyright of whoever created it, and you deciding to declare it otherwise does not change that. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless you created it, which then creates other problems with its use in an article you created. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue seems to be the author is using language similar to a blog he has written on the subject. I don't see a copyright issue. The problem is it's not very well-written, but it is amply referenced with 70 reliable sources. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status of the quotes?

Okay, so the copyright status of the text that was previously published on Wordpress is good and cleared up. I'm less clear about the abundance of quotes on this page - we've got court rulings and laws from a number of different countries, and conformity studies which were done "prepared by Milieu Ltd. in consortium with the Europa Institute, Edinburgh University under Contract". Off the top of my head, I don't know for sure which if any of those are subject to copyright protection or not. My knowledge of EU law is not on par with my knowledge of US law. That said, if the conformity studies are the works of Milieu and/or Europa and not government works, then that's clearer - the current Edinburgh Europa Institute website specifically states "Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all material is copyright © 2021 The University of Edinburgh." Does anybody here have a better knowledge of EU law regarding government publications and/or the circumstances around which the conformity studies were created? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Going by templates at Commons, any material published by the EU government body is in the public domain per [1]. --Masem (t) 16:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so between you and Hut below, we've cleared up that the laws and court rulings are fine. (Thanks both!) Now I guess it's time for some research to see if the Conformity Studies are somehow from the government or just about the government. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:PD quotes the US Copyright Office as saying that any "edict of government" (including foreign governments) is PD in the US. While they aren't the final say on the matter, court rulings and laws are likely PD in the US. Which is ultimately what counts, even if they are copyrighted in the source country. Hut 8.5 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I remembered the edict of government thing, I forgot that it applied to foreign governments as well. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2022 (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:

• Discrimination.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions

Some suggestions:

1. For Zambrano, the judgment of the Court does not mention reverse discrimination at all.[2] Was the case really about reverse discrimination? Did the Court affirm Sharpston AG’s view on this point?
2. The examples of treatment by country is better presented as a series of subsections rather than a long table.
3. See these for more examples in case law, especially on goods: wikiversity:User:Kaihsu/IMlawA4 – wikiversity:User:Kaihsu/IMlawB – wikiversity:User:Kaihsu/IMlawB2 – wikiversity:User:Kaihsu/IMlawB4 – wikiversity:User:Kaihsu/IMlawD3.

– Kaihsu (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Some earlier discussion here: User_talk:Storchy#Reverse_Discrimination_explained_as_"One_must_bear_in_mind_that_this_phenomena_is_a_result_of_disloyal_position_of_the_state_towards_its_own_citizens" Kaihsu (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)