Talk:Gyles v Wilcox

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 21, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

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

Is 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Outcome of case

I 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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello 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:

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)[reply]