Talk:The Dawn of the Black Hearts

Picture Removal

Dawn of the Black Hearts picture should be removed, it is the ACTUAL picture of the lead singer after he committed suicide, therefore is very disrespectful and unappreciated.

But it's also the ACTUAL cover.

picture must not be removed!

Well, given that it does depict a person with his skull blown open, wrists slit, and what looks to be bits of brain sitting beside him, the picture should probably be behind some kind of warning, since it is graphic by any standards. What about taking down this image and providing an off-site link (with a fair warning)? Its about the same thing that is done here with articles on intrinsically disturbing (visually, that is) things like the harlequin fetus, to use one example.

It's an album cover and it has everything to do with the subject matter so it stays. Get over it. Wikipedia and life in general are not censored for the squeamish. Sion 10:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess if you're the kind of person who is offended by this, you probably shouldn't be listening to Mayhem anyway. 72.12.163.230 07:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This article does not only address people who like to listen to Mayhem's music. This is a universal encyclopedia, not a fan forum.

Brains are cool to look at. the juggreserection 13:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that's about the coolest album cover EVER! But seriously, think about this for a moment. Where does it say you can't have a picture of a dead person on Wikipedia? Why is it alright to write about death but not show a picture? Should pictures of concentration camps be censored too? Paintings of Jesus' crucification? Should we only record history that you think is appropriate? --76.16.71.212 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored you dipshit.97.97.149.74 (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The photo is in very poor taste, the singer's family is not happy with it. I'd like to keep the site child-safe if possible, this photo is sensationalistic and has no informational value. Besides, even though the photographer is dead, the photo is not public domain, and it was used on the bootleg without permission or payment, so any fair use rationale for reproducing the cover is moot. I remove the photo now, I expect it to be up again in ten minutes. 88.89.218.18 (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo IS public domain without a doubt. Please show me evidence the photo has a copyright on it. Also I wouldn't necessarily say "without permission" as Euronymous was the one who sent the photo to the record label. 2A00:23C0:5F86:8C00:21DE:F92D:E359:A54E (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Life is not child safe. Adapt or die. 216.67.37.162 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to live in a world in which only the strongest will survive than go live in a cave somewhere in the forests, but don't hang around here at wikipedia.

If you can show me where Ohlin's family objects to the photo, I'll be content. But keep this in mind- it wasn't them who took it, it was one of the people from Mayhem (probably Aarseth, but no one really knows), so they'd have the rights to it. And if we can show pictures of some bastard on a cross, why not show a picture of a suicide? And finally, people aren't going to accidentally stumble across this page, it's not easy to find.

With all that said, if there really is something you have about Ohlin's family objecting to it, I'd really like to see it. Paragon of Arctic Winter Nights (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a picture from an interview with Pelle's brother, Anders, included in 2016's Peaceville's release of "Live in Zeitz", where he asks for the picture not to be spread. https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/13466483_1824520974435755_6989087685867764171_n.jpg?oh=f1e64f9bfff3f0aa2242cbe85cefc60b&oe=58984095&__gda__=1486736837_6403e0d490cf6abdfaabe874baece92b

Also, the notes in the official release of his first band, Morbid - "Year of the Goat", released by surviving band mates, clearly says:"No thanks to the distributors and buyers of the post-mortem pic. Fuck you." https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t31.0-8/333634_296365473723938_1358387437_o.jpg

Wikipedia should respect the wishes of his family and friends, and stop spreading this picture. DL1982 (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The picture should be removed Sobzz (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

His brother, Anders, is fighting to remove the image from internat according to: https://www.nrk.no/det-ar-jag-som-ar-doden-1.15117277 , therefore, the picture should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante58x (talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dante58x: Yeah uhh tell him I said good luck with that 😂😂😂 He should really read the story of Porsche girl if he actually somehow thinks it’s possible to get photos spread on the internet removed. Also how in the hell is his brother going to get the image permanently dispelled when it’s an iconic image with actual t-shirts made?? And yet somehow your claim that he wants it removed is your basis for removing the pic from the article?? What an absurd stupid argument. Second Skin (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Have noticed that the infobox image has been removed - rightly so in my opinion. Doubtless it will be replaced with the no censorship argument. This image is not used on the Mayhem page where it has clearly been chosen to be excluded. I support the previous arguments for its removal on the grounds that it is disrepectful and hurtful to friends and family members. It has also been manipulated for the sake of obtaining a sensationalist photo. And bits of the deceased person's skull taken by the photographer and made into necklaces on its own must give pause - why allow this sick representation? On JFK's page there is not one photograph of his actual assassination many of which exist. It's called respect. --Iztwoz (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It occasionally tries to get removed by people such as yourself that try so hard and want to censor a well-known album cover for whatever reason people like you do it for, yeah. Also "respect" LMAO. If JFK's corpse was displayed on a overtly well-known piece of history relative to what he completed in his career, you can be goddamn certain the photograph of that tapestry would absolutely be included on a article about that medium. I have yet to see a single viable or valid reason why you people want to get rid of this album cover so badly because everything thus far has been inane like "it offends me" or something like that. Second Skin (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Us people include the above people with a little sensitivity, and also the latest members of the band who released it in 1917 with a change of album cover. Why do you suppose that was?--Iztwoz (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:GRATUITOUS, images are supposed "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". It seems hard to argue that including the original album cover actually serves that purpose. The text description is right there; the image may convey shock value, but it does not convey information. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware this site is a read-only encyclopedia that can only give readers hints of what a visualized setting looks like. Try reading MOS:ALBUM (the guideline that specifically concerns the use of album covers) it states “ Albums are composed of not just the tracks themselves, but different styles of packaging and artwork that help create a visual statement to accompany the recording.” In other words it’s a very important part of the disclosing the available information about an album, just some words telling what it looks like isnt going to cut it otherwise why isn’t there just some text-only caption for all album articles on this site? There is nothing there that says “If the album goes against morality standards or WP:GRATUITOUS it can’t be shown.” And that’s not even mentioning that this album and the accompanied cover art is a big part of the Mayhem (band) history. Omitting the cover because you don’t like it or don’t agree with it is not compliance with creating thorough documented history of this band. Second Skin (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: and if you're still under the impression that a text-only description can be suitable replacement for the graphic cover art after reading all that I wrote above, I want to ask of you to take a look at the article for R. Budd Dwyer, whose page literally contains a photo of Dwyer holding a revolver in his mouth and committing suicide. Now, do you want to know why that picture is there? It's simply because Budd Dwyer is without question most famous for committing suicide live on TV, so naturally such an iconic moment would definitely be documented on his article. However I don't see you over on that talk page arguing that there's already enough text-based descriptions on his article to explain that he committed suicide and a image of it is an inappropriate/unnecessary inclusion, maybe you should get on that. As far as this article goes, I still am not convinced at all why this album cover should be removed, as Znoisuled said the cover art is the most significant element of this album being as infamous as it is and is the biggest reason why it even has an article on Wikipedia. Lastly I really heavily suggest you take a look at WP:NOTCENSORED because you and the other guy still seem really heavily stuck on the notion of "this offends me, I dont like it, so it has to go," which is not a viable argument at all - Second Skin (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on this argument one way or the other. If the cover photo stays, it stays. If the cover photo goes, it goes. Either way, I don't really care.

That being said... To all the internet tough guys in this discussion who are acting all hardcore and "talking down" in a smug, sarcastic way to people who want the cover photo removed, all I have to say is this:

It would be hugely and enormously and massively HILARIOUS(!!!) if ALL of you committed suicide in some gory, bloody way just so that the rest of us can take pictures of your dead body and then post them on the internet so that everybody can point and leer and laugh at your decomposing corpse!!! LOL!!!

That would be really, really, REALLY funny and also genuinely ironic to boot.

LOL, edgelords. Go back to mommy and daddy's basement.

NONE of you have ever seen a dead body of someone you loved; otherwise, you wouldn't be acting all fake and wannabe hardcore.

That's also why you're probably a bunch of fedora-tipping, neck-bearded basement dwellers.

In other words, you're not "kvlt," you're just weak.

If Dead and Euronymous were here, they would laugh at you...

...and call you what you are:

Posers. 107.145.104.160 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Well considering ive literally told close family members i hope i die a gruesome death and it's used as a goregrind album cover before you sound like a real fool Second Skin (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy 13th birthday kiddo, enjoying your edgelord phase? 2A02:C7C:98A0:6F00:201E:6672:F57D:151E (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Right but Budd Dwyers page also doesn’t show his dead body with blood and brain leaking out of his nose like what happened when he did kill himself. Your argument would have merit if it was a photo of dead with the shotgun in his mouth moments before he died. But instead it is a photo of dead well dead with his brains hanging out. So your argument presents us with something that isn’t 1:1 like you think it is. Because a massive difference is one shows moments before death and the other shows moments after. They are not the same. I suggest taking logic classes to help you next time you try this. 2601:602:C600:400:B81C:2E75:6233:9451 (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

I'm sure that there could be a significant discussion about censorship, but completely apart from whether this is appropriate in some moral sense, the album cover is a copyright violation, and Wikipedia can't host copyright violations. We can't even link to the bootleg recording, because of WP:LINKVIO; the photo is every bit as much a copyright violation as the recording, and there's simply no way to post it in the article without creating a much more serious and direct copyright violation than merely linking to it somewhere. The usual rules about fair use for album covers do not apply when we know that the album cover itself is a copyright violation. I really don't think that we can keep this image at all. The file needs to be deleted and cannot even be linked to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: / @Markworthen: sorry to bother you guys but I need someone who is good with album articles to confirm here if this album cover is somehow now a "copyright violation", or is it fair use like every other album cover ever uploaded to Wikipedia? Someone please explain this because that would be actually amazing how this specific album cover is somehow breaching "copyright". Second Skin (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You probably want an admin, not a normal editor, and someone who knows something about copyright law, which means you need to ping people like @Newyorkbrad.

Think it through this way:

• The music is a bootleg recording, i.e., a copyright violation. Copyright violations are absolutely legally toxic to Wikipedia. Under WP:LINKVIO, it's a serious policy violation to even add an external link to that music.
• The photo is also a "bootleg" photo, i.e., a copyright violation. Nobody ever gave legal permission for the photo to be published (as the album cover or as anything else). Again: Copyright violations are absolutely legally toxic to Wikipedia. Under WP:LINKVIO, it would be a serious policy violation to even add an external link to that photo.

Obviously, if it's too legally toxic for Wikipedia to provide a link to a copyright violation, it's also too legally toxic for Wikipedia to host our own local copy and re-publish it ourselves on our own website.

It doesn't matter what the content is; the legal problem here would apply even if it were a smiley face or a corporate logo. I gather that you think this is unfortunate, but copyright is just something we can't mess with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I see a comment above from an IP claiming that the album is public domain, which I suppose shows you how little some people know about copyright law. An IP editor reverted the copyvio image back into the article with an explanation about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that doesn't mention copyright status at all. We really can't host copyright violations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The image has been deleted as a copyright violation, and I have added a FAQ at the top of the page to help future editors understand why this happened and why it's not okay to just add another copy later. I realize that this will be disappointing to a few editors (and a relief to others, if this page is any guide), but copyright law is a serious thing, and Wikipedia's NOTCENSORED policy doesn't exempt this page from complying with copyright law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no copyright holder to the image as the creator of the image Euronymous who also never registered it for copyright is deceased. Ohlin's family do not own the copyright to the image just because their family member is in the image. That's not how copyright law works. As per copyright law you don't own photos taken of yourself or your family by default. The creator of the image is always the copyright holder unless rights are sold or given to someone else. What evidence do you have that Ohlin's family own the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This entire conversation started with the families' involvement. We didn't just make it up. /Julle (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. You can't just claim "we didn't make it up". You need to provide a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

A fairly central part of how Wikipedia works is that the burden on proving that something that would normally be copyrighted (e.g. a work where the creator died less than 70 years ago, like this photo) is in the public domain would be on you. Registration hasn't been a part of copyrighting anything in the US since 1978 (only necessary if you want to file for infringement), and is even less relevant for the countries where the copyright owners live or lived. This is not how copyright works. Wikipedia has always been careful about copyright; that means that you need to prove it's in the public domain.

(No one has claimed Ohlin's family owns the copyright merely because he's depicted. It was legally transferred to Ohlin's family from Aarseth's estate, as pointed out above.) /Julle (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Except it wasn't. Aarseth's father destroyed the images of Dead he found in his apartment. There was no "transferring of copyright" there was only destruction and the last surviving photograph from the photoset didn't surface until 1995 2 years after Aarseth's death and 2 years after the images were destroyed. How can they copyright something they destroyed? Mauricio "Bull Metal" Botero was given one of the photos from the set by Aarseth before his death. Neither Aarseth or Ohlin's family would have had the particular image used on the album in their possession. They would have had other photos from the photoset but not the particular image used on Dawn. How can they have copyright on something the copyright owner gave away to someone else? No evidence has been provided for the claim "It was legally transferred to Ohlin's family from Aarseth's estate, as pointed out above." Citation needed! Show us an article confirming this to be the case, show us the copyright registration record, show us the court case regarding the estate which would be on public record etc. Where's the proof the image is copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet again, this is not how copyright works. Possession has nothing to do with copyright. What happened to the physical copy is irrelevant for the legal status of a reproduction. Photographs are copyrighted by default at creation/publication. /Julle (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

And I repeat: if you want to argue that a photo from the 90s is in the public domain (it is not), the way Wikipedia works is that the burden of proof is on you. We take copyright seriously. /Julle (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Burden of proof is not on me. There has been no official copyright claim made only some user baselessly claiming the family have copyright but offering no evidence. How does one prove a negative? How can there be "evidence" for something not existing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright is automatic at creation/publication. It is also inherited. It also remains even if a physical copy has been destroyed. Which is why the default assumption on Wikipedia always is that a photo from the 90s is copyrighted, and you have to prove the exception. /Julle (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Redirect problem

When you type in "dawn of the black hearts" it takes you to Mayhem. I'd fix it but I dunno how. Penguinwithin (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed that :) Cic (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On the cover

Why is there no information regarding the fact that the knife is sitting over the shotgun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.170.175.252 (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is purely speculation on my part, but I wouldn't put moving stuff around past someone who would take a picture like this. Or maybe it landed like that somehow. Strange things happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.253.190 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Some research (read: googling) suggests that's exactly what happen; the photographer moved some stuff around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.253.190 (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo?

Looks like a drawing to me. Any evidence that this is actually a photo, and if so, is there any explanation as to its strange quality? 175.38.194.229 (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume you have never seen a developed photograph taken with a disposal camera in the 90s before Second Skin (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The picture Wikipedia uses is a low quality version and the not the original cover (The original says "The Dawn of the Black Hearts" not "Dawn of the Black Hearts"). Remember no one has access to the original photo so any subsequent pressings have scanned the photo from another source which often vary in quality. The original Vinyl (which is the best quality you will ever find the picture in) is very difficult to get a hold of now so most new editions of the album are a scan of a scan of a scan and so on. If you look at the original Vinyl it's unmistakably a real photograph. 2A00:23C0:5F86:8C00:21DE:F92D:E359:A54E (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the image for the album’s cover with a photo of the original 1995 release. Second Skin (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dawn of the Black Hearts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214200010/http://musicmight.com/artist/norway/oslo/mayhem to http://www.musicmight.com/artist/norway/oslo/mayhem
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214200010/http://musicmight.com/artist/norway/oslo/mayhem to http://www.musicmight.com/artist/norway/oslo/mayhem
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202003922/http://www.thetruemayhem.com/releases/audio/bootleg/blackhearts/blackhearts.htm to http://www.thetruemayhem.com/releases/audio/bootleg/blackhearts/blackhearts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Title should be changed to "The Dawn of the Black Hearts"

This article is specifically about the original pressing which the title is "The Dawn of the Black Hearts". Only poor quality copies where the cover is a scan of a scan of a scan and the font is standard black Mayhem font use the alternate title "Dawn of the Black Hearts". 2A00:23C0:5F86:8C00:21DE:F92D:E359:A54E (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case the page could do with renaming altogether, if anyone has the knowledge of how to do it. 86.2.234.7 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done I moved the page to this title a little while back. Just now chiming in to say it was done. Second Skin (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we merge this to the band's article?

Hey guys, for a few months I've been wondering about whether this article should last any longer. The whole reason why Mayhem considered this album, a bootleg album that was never commercially released, one of their own, and why the article for this album even exists is because of the cover art of Dead being, well, dead (I know, poor taste, but you know what I'm saying). Taking photos of a dead body is more or less as horrid as taking photos of someone nude without asking, but that photo became that cover art and a significant part of the band's history, so not much to do there. Anyway, the cover art was taken down from the article due to a copyright violation, and it's probably just as well that the article stays like this. Besides that, there were severe back-and-forth arguments over whether or not the image should be included, citing concerns for graphic morbidity, disrespect, etc. Of course, Wikipedia is not censored, which is why even potentially offensive material can be accepted and must stay as long as it's in context with the topic, and those include a dead body, nudity (even underage), racial slurs, portrayal of Islamic religious figures, etc. The only reason anything should be censored here is if the offensive material is out of context and straight-up vandalism, violating copyright or privacy, and slanderous to living persons. However, even with a new submission that doesn't violate copyright, that cover art would still induce those disruptive arguments. Since bootlegs that remain unofficial aren't usually welcome here, and the cover art is basically the whole purpose of this article, it has to go. But there is a handful of reliable sources here, so it can't be completely deleted, which I suggested merging this article to the Mayhem one. Please take the time to consider all this. Thanks....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we can describe the album even if we can't show the cover? /Julle (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing the image was the absolute stupidist fucking idea... a bunch of pusssies came in and demanded it be removed because it offends them and when that didnt work they fell back on "copyright" as their backup argument. Lol. Censorship is abysmal

I restored the photo. Its not a copyright issue as it has a valid fair-use rational & wikipedia isnt censored --FMSky (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It's finally back? As the IP said the entire situation was absolutely absurd, first it was people being offended that it depicted a man's suicide (not sure how a file that's been on this page for 15 years would have offended people recently of all times)... then when that didn't work they tried the "copyright" bullshit. You can see my comments above on this very page where I fought tooth and nail to try to talk any sense into them but when you're being dogpiled by multiple people against your word, obviously you're likely not going to prevail. Still I have no idea how or why that argument even won. Keep your eyes on this page just in case they try removing it once more. Should have never been removed to even begin with, it's not like the cover art is some obscure death photo from BestGore or anything....it's literally an iconic image and album cover. 🙄 Not to mention the "copyright" argument makes absolutely zero sense either. Second Skin (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@FMSky, this image can't be used because it violates WP:NFCCP #4: "Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder".

NFCCP has nothing to do with the contents of the image. It has absolutely everything to do with the fact that when the bootlegger put the photo on his copyvio of an album, he didn't get copyright permission from the then-copyright holder (Euronymous), and none of the (two) subsequent copyright holders authorized its publication, either. The photo could be all flowers and rainbows and still be a violation of NFCCP #4. The only thing that matters for NFCCP is whether the copyright holder agreed to its publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Cover image

Thanks for restoring the cover image!

Per WP:NOTCENSORED, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍". If someone thinks this important Wikipedia policy should not be applied to this article, please start a WP:RFC to reach a consensus before removing it again.

The file now has a fair use rationale. If someone disagrees with it, the issue should be taken to WP:FFD.

Also, who wrote the "Frequently asked questions" at the top of this talk page? Surely, such a section should only be written based on a strong consensus? It is also erroneous, since the statement "The copyright is held by the family of the man pictured in the photo" is not true. The original creator always holds the copyright, if there is not an explicit statement that they transfer it to someone else. Or can someone find such a statement, made by Euronymous?

37.197.180.150 (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It's because the people who raided this page have such a bad case of grandiose delusion and absolutism to the point where they'll even lie about made-up credentials just to keep people from seeing an album cover that has been on here for 15 years. Second Skin (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed the "FAQ" from the page as it's factually incorrect how copyright works. Also fun fact I should add: while checking the edit history for the "FAQ", two different users were reverted here and here after being very reasonable with their questionable nature regarding how this indeed is not a truthful way that copyright works, after they made both their edits they were reverted - the second time it happened the page was then permanently protected from any further editing. There is definitely something extremely sus going on here in that any time a person has tried to restore the image from the page they're forced back out and any questioning for their reasons for such are immediately silenced by callous editors who will blatantly lie about "copyright" to fit their narrative and agenda, and obviously that's not at all unjust behavior or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.202.153.67 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

if there is not an explicit statement that they transfer it to someone else. Or can someone find such a statement, made by Euronymous?

No, one finds that the transfer agreement was made by Eruonymous's estate, after his death. Posthumous copyright transfers made by your estate after your death are every bit as much binding as copyright transfers made by you before your death. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content --FMSky (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

NFCC requires that the image was previously published with permission from the copyright holder, which has never happened in this case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Question of owner of copyright

The FAQ states that the copyright owner of the photo is "the family of [Dead]", but based on my (admittedly little) knowledge of copyright law, shouldn't the copyright owner be Euronymous because he was the one who took the photos? If so, we should correct it. Either way, it seems the cover art won't come back up because it seems Bull Metal wasn't given permission from either Dead nor Euronymous (as is the nature of bootlegs). FromtheEndofElo (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

the idiots who keep removing the image from this article have a completely retarded/erroneous idea of how "copyright" works. None of it is sensical at all. "The copyright is held by the family of the man pictured in the photo, who have publicly stated that its use anywhere, for any purpose, has never been authorized." LMFAAAOOOOO😂😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.61.60 (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey @158.140.61.60, insulting and mocking others isn't helpful. if you want to help out and improve wikipedia articles, you should be considerate and have a open mind while working with others, even if you may disagree. Just treat others with decent respect FromtheEndofElo (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Question about the cover itself being a copyvio

I see that in the FAQ and other comments, it's said that the cover itself is a copyvio due to it being used for a bootleg album.

My 2 cents is that the album cover is a distinct work from the album itself, which IS a copyvio.

Also, nobody answered this question, which in my opinion is valid, because nowhere is it explained why Death's family own the copyright and not Euronymous. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka, here is the the explanation of how Dead's family came to own the copyright now. I'm going to simplify this, but please ask if this is still too complicated to understand:

• Copyright is a kind of intellectual property that is automatically created and automatically owned by the author/photographer. That is, from the moment he pushed the button on the camera, Euronymous owned the copyright.
• Euronymous died in 1993. The copyright, which started when he pushed the button on the camera, will legally exist until 2063 (year of death + 70 years).
• The following is an oversimplification, but: When you die, "you" stop owning things, and "your estate" owns all of your property instead. (Please read about Estate planning if you don't know what that word means.)
• After you die, your estate gets "settled". This is ideally done by following the instructions you wrote in your Will, but if you die without writing a will, then every country has its own rules about who owns your property, so it all works out one way or the other. Your will (or a judge at the probate court, if you didn't write one) appoints a particular person to be the Executor or Administrator of your estate. This person's job is to pay your outstanding bills, distribute your property, etc. The ultimate goal is for your estate to own nothing, and for all of the property to be transferred to the heirs.
• As part of the process of settling the estate, the executor of Euronymous' estate legally transferred the copyright of these images to Dead's family.

P.S. The FAQ does not say that the cover itself is a copyvio due to it being used for a bootleg album. The FAQ says that the cover itself is a copyvio due to it being published without permission from any of the past or current copyright holders. You are correct that the cover is a distinct work in terms of copyright law. Perhaps having a copyvio cover on a bootleg album is unsurprising – someone who would pirate one would presumably have no qualms about pirating the other – but the copyright claims on the cover and the recording are, should be, and have been, evaluated separately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks! This cleared up some misunderstandings I had about this whole ordeal. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a source on the executor of Euronymous' estate legally transferring the copyright to Dead's family? I cannot verify that. UlyssesYYZ (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the link handy, but I do remember that the source was written in Swedish (a Swedish-language newspaper or magazine). But it doesn't really matter, because the problem is that nobody ever authorized its use as the album cover – not Euronymous when he was alive, not Euronymous' estate after he was killed, and not Dead's family after Euronymous' family transferred it to them. What we would need, to be able to use this, is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources proving that someone in that chain legally agreed to the photo being used. If it were officially authorized before Euronymous' death, for example, then that contract would still be binding now, even if the current copyright holders disapproved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Cover Art - The New One?

Should the cover art for the one that peacevile did for the 2019 official release be used? 2A02:C7C:98A0:6F00:201E:6672:F57D:151E (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

As long as it meets all of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (e.g., the new cover art was published with the permission of whoever holds the copyrights for the new cover art), then the new cover art could be used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)