The real question is whether she owns it, or her professor.
A lot of times your thesis won’t be yours, but will be owned by the school, or jointly.
CharlesWayneCT
No rights are absolute.
For instance, you have rights over your neighbor’s property in the event that your neighbor maintains his property in a way that endangers your life (such as a poorly maintained dam or a store selling incense and gasoline).
So which right is of higher value? Hillary’s alleged copyright over this document or the voting public’s right to be fully aware of the views of a candidate for President of the US?
I strongly beileve in property rights, unlike Hillary who fawningly quotes Alinsky:
“The radical places human rights far above property rights.” (p. 6)
And John L Lewis:
“A man’s right to a job transcends the right of private property.” (p. 2)
It would be an act of hypocrisy for Hillary to assert copyright over this and then use that copyright to block publication—but that is exactly what she has done since 1993.
In spite of my belief in property rights, I firmly believe that the voters’ right to know is a higher right in this case.
“The real question is whether she owns it, or her professor.”
I hadn’t really thought of that. I would say the university should have the rights. They awarded a degree for something and should be able to produce what prompted them to bestow the honor.