[cormacrelf]

> Right, and a judge could rule that, in fact, it is possible to arbitrarily revoke free licensing at any time.

On the basis of what law or treaty? First of all, dedication is not "free licensing". It is not licensing in any sense whatsoever. When you dedicate the work, you are no longer the holder, hence public domain is also what works fall into when the author is long dead. I'm not sure what piece of law you'd be re-interpreting to reverse all of that understanding, which would be a precondition to allowing dedicators to retain any control whatsoever over a work that's currently in the public domain.

Your original point was better, if it is ruled that "dedication to the public domain" is not and has never been a real thing, then the original dedications never took effect, and copyright holders remained copyright holders instead of forfeiting all control. Stick to that one.

[Beldin]

> When you dedicate the work, you are no longer the holder

I wonder how courts know how to distinguish between "I dedicate this work to..."

- "my wonderful husband"

- "my devoted readers"

- "the revolution in $COUNTRY"

- "the public domain".

Or perhaps there's no distinction and you all owe me copyright fees for those worjs dedicated to me as a devoted reader.

[cormacrelf]

Copyright assignment is what you’re describing, and yes they are able to distinguish, because dedication is not the word for that and more generally people aren’t stupid. Copyright assignment typically has a number of formal requirements to succeed including being in writing and being signed by the assignor. Next time tell the joke about a signed copy :)