Talk:Gyles v Wilcox
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Gyles v Wilcox has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 2, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the decision in Gyles v Wilcox established the legal precedent of fair abridgement, which later evolved into the modern concept of fair use? | |||||||||
Fair dealing
editIs it legally correct / fair to say that this case was instrumental in determining fair use (now associated with the US) without at all mentioning fair dealing? I don't know, just the though occurred to me whilst reading the article so I thought I'd better ask. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- None of the sources on Gyles discuss fair dealing; they simply link it to fair abridgement, which they then subsequently link to fair use. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Outcome of case
editI don't think the outcome for the case is correct. The sources don't appear to fully substantiate the claim that the final ruling was that it was an infringement of Gyles' printing rights, and this article says that it was found to be a fair abridgment (more fully discussed in the author's full article linked at the top of the page).--iamseans (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gyles v Wilcox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725200047/http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/showScreen/%22uk_1741_im_001_0001.jpg%22 to http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/showScreen/%22uk_1741_im_001_0001.jpg%22
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725200056/http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/showScreen/%22uk_1741b_im_001_0001.jpg%22 to http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/showScreen/%22uk_1741b_im_001_0001.jpg%22
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725200039/http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabeCom/%22uk_1741%22 to http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabeCom/%22uk_1741%22
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)