This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria 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.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The bot's edit is error. The information is about official public institution. Such information cannot be copyrighted. -Stalik (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
That is incorrect, information about public institutions certainly can be copyrighted and there's no indication that it isn't in this case. Copyright exists automatically unless explicitly disclaimed. I have removed the offending content from this article, you should not readd it. Hut 8.5 21:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
This is ridiculous. Explanation of the functions and competencies of a public institution cannot be copyrighted. How can words and phrases like "equality body" or Paris Principles or "legally binding decisions" or "compulsory administrative measures" be copyrighted and if they are - HOW to explain what this institution is actually for!? --Stalik (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
