Talk:Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Needs References edit
It seems like this article is in dire need of references, as well as some elaboration about the case itself and its fallout. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Adding Substance edit
In addition to the lack of secondary sources regarding the cases, it seems to me that such an important case requires substantially more content devoted to it. For instance, one important point about fair use that this article doesn't mention is the question of how important the excerpted material is to the whole of the piece. It's not that 300 words is a huge amount, as the article currently implies - what instead matters is the court's judgment that those 300 words discussing Nixon were at the heart of the book, the most important thing in it. Let's see if we can round up some well-sourced commentary that more fully conveys the case's importance. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Grammar edit
Is "an historic" correct in internat'l English? !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.30.17 (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)