Talk:all rights reserved

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

all rights reserved

This is critical. The translation table is huge but not standardised at all. ---> Tooironic 00:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think those are the interwikis from Wikipedia. They all need to be lowercase, not uppercase (well, not German obviously). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't there wikilinks for all the translations? The notice was formerly required under the Berne Convention. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(move from below) I've done a bit of a cleanup of translations. Is anyone interested in continuing/finishing it? Some non-Roman translations require transliteration. --Anatoli 03:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: German - only nouns are capitalised but not other parts of speech (for non-nouns the rules are the same as in English), so alle Rechte vorbehalten would be the right spelling. --Anatoli 03:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. A couple of translations don't use {{t}} (I didn't bother searching for language codes) but otherwise it's okey now. --Anatoli 03:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. In English this is an invariant term that all books (and other copyrighted materials?) had as part of the copyright notice through most of the 20th century. I think this is a case where a "translation" must be the analogous formula rather than a true translation. Do we need some kind of confirmation by inspecting at least one copyright page in each language? DCDuring TALK 03:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the term was first used in English and when used was translated differently by different companies or authorities, e.g. in Russian both translations are valid and I've seen used on copyrighted materials. I don't know the source of the original translations in the entry. --Anatoli 10:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess the rigidity of the formulation could vary by country and, hence, by language. There is a conceptual question: What is being translated, the legal term as used in English or the corresponding equivalent legal term as used in other countries/languages? I suppose this is just a sharper instance of the general translation issue. DCDuring TALK 11:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It is both, IMHO. Thus a DVD issued in one country may have this notice in many languages - native and foreign and the country where that language is native may have it but the wording may differ. Whether "все права защищены" or "все права сохранены" is written, they have the same effect but the first is more common, perhaps different authorities issue somewhat different notices? --Anatoli 11:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope all translators are sensitive to the issue for such terms. DCDuring TALK 11:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Like with most translations made by multiple translators, you can never be sure that all of them are 100% right. --Anatoli 01:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Do any of them look like ttbc candidates? DCDuring TALK 02:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought, you'd ask. I would only add "ttbc" if I have a reason to doubt, not if I don't know a language, otherwise there will always be someone who is not sure if the translation is correct. Do you know what I mean? I searched in quotes "" for about a half of translations, by the way, it gave me some comfort that they must be OK. --Anatoli 02:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I trust your judgment. I wonder if the English definition should be reworded as a functional definition, something like: A statement, such as that printed in the front matter of a book published between 1883 and 2001 used to protect all the rights of the copyright holder. Would that make it clearer that it would be better to look in the front of a book for the relevant statement than to translate the English words? DCDuring TALK 03:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. The translation's sense may need to be changed as well. I trust your judgment. Thanks. Just in case, please don't assume I have verified all the translations - that would take a very long time and I would struggle with many of them. --Anatoli 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

all rights reserved

SoP: "all of [your] legal or moral entitlements are set aside for [your] use." TeleComNasSprVen 03:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

First, you've got it backwards; not your rights, but the rights of the copyright holder. Secondly, it's used nigh exclusively in the field of copyright; the rights reserved are those of copyright. Thirdly, it was a legal formula, required to protect copyright in a work.--Prosfilaes 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep. Not SoP as it is totally unguessable from its parts. Set phrase with a specific legal meaning.--Dmol 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this passes the prior knowledge test and/or the genuine issue of material fact test. - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep, of course. It's a set phrase with a specific meaning that goes way beyond the sum of its parts. And, wow, those translations are really useful. ---> Tooironic 23:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep as legal set phrase. DCDuring TALK 00:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep because being able to see entries defined by me populating Wiktionary makes me happy. The reasons above are better for the community as a whole, though. --Daniel. 08:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep --Anatoli 09:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely don't know what this means, since I know what all, rights and reserved mean, it looks distinctly not SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Set phrase with unintuitively limited applicability. bd2412 T 14:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

kept per overwhelming consensus -- Prince Kassad 22:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)