Re: Re: Re: Re: He did not "alter, transform or build upon" the wiki stuff,
Either way, neither he nor his agent (publisher) have the legal right to sue people who share the work.
Well I don' think that's true. If it is case 2 (his entire work is in violation of copyright law), that doesn't give anyone else the right to share (copy) the work.
As I understand the facts as things currently stand, his work is in violation of copyright law. Period.
He could probably negotiate a settlement by placing his work under the same CC-BY-SA license, and adding attribution, thereby bringing future copies of his work into compliance, but it seems the violated authors (wikipedia) would have to agree that was acceptable.
Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!
OK, first of all cooking/recipes is not the same concept as food.
Given our current concept of copyright, it makes as much sense to have recipes copyrightable as it does music or books.
Your statement is equivalent to saying stories have been around for thousands of years so stories are in the public domain and therefore are not copyrightable. Or the analogy could be that writing has been around for thousands of years...
Next, "the public domain" is an artificial concept created by the laws defining copyright, if there were no copyright/patent laws (an artificial concept created and enforced by government) then the concept of public domain would be meaningless as all thoughts/ideas/expressions of ideas would be usable by anyone who encountered them.
The food industry and the fashion industry are both really good examples of how copyright may be unnecessary, and perhaps counter productive to to goal of increasing creativity for the general good.