Talk:Debbie Reynolds/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Was Debbie Reynold's father a carpenter or a ditchdigger?

The section on Early life gives information that Debbie Reynold's father, Ray Reynolds, was a carpenter. A couple of lines down in the same section, Ray is identified as a ditchdigger. Did he change careers? Did he work two jobs at the same time? Is there false information in the article? This information needs clarification. Anthony22 (talk)

He apparently did both during his work with the railroad. But I removed the ditch digging part to simplify. --Light show (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

This edit asserts that TCM has some sort of claim over an actor's listed filmography with the edit summary of "Replace with selection of major films over her career, to avoid WP:COPYVIO from claims asserted by TCM at tcm.com/terms-of-use.html" I have reverted this removal of content - TCM has no rights over an actor's filmography, that's publicly-accessible information available from a huge multitude of sources. And, besides, where exactly did TCM get their information? It's not like they produced the movies or had anything to do with creating the product. I understand that TCM is being used as the reference, so to deal with that I have listed multiple sources for Miss Reynolds' filmography. Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyvio in Filmography

Addressing the section above (which caused an edit conflict): The Debbie_Reynolds#Filmography section appears to be copied from Turner Classic Movies's Debbie Reynolds Filmography and reformatted into a Wikitable. According to my reading of WP:COPYVIO the "infringing content should be removed" and {{cclean}} should be used to tag that section, but I took a more conservative approach and replaced the Filmography section with a shorter one called Selected filmography and including eight major films, hoping this might satisfy Fair use. Shortly thereafter, this change was reverted with an edit summary indicating that sources would be found.

It seems to me the material should be deleted first, then restored after the permission status is clarified, not the other way round. I've added a {{Copypaste}} template to the article, and a link to this discussion from WP:CP. Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that two additional references (TV guide, Rotten Tomatoes) have been added to each row of the table, during the edit conflict. I'm not sure if this changes anything or not; hopefully admins with expertise in Copyvio issues can sort it out. Mathglot (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The TV Guide "Terms of use" links to CBS Terms of use page; see section 4. "Intellectual Property; License". The Rotten Tomatoes "Terms of Use" links (in 2 hops) to Fandango's terms and policies page which says, "Such material is protected by copyright, trademark and other applicable laws," and they don't even let you link to the Debbie Reynolds page, let alone copy the text there, because they say: "You also agree that you will not link to any page on the Site other than the home page (for example, "deep linking"), without Fandango's prior written consent." Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whatever. I'll just look up the info in one of the books about the Golden Age of Hollywood or one of the Reynolds biographies etc. Regarding using these sources as references, I am sure the copyright mavens around here will fix everything up according to Hoyle. Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)TCM cannot assert a copyright to publicly accessible information, it's like trying to copyright the sky is blue or that water is wet, there are only so many ways you can state something is so. It seems to me that the reason that all the references agree is because it's all the same info and it is a matter of public record which movies, TV shows., etc that Miss Reynolds appeared in. TCM does not own the information about a performer's entire career. If you think the possible copyright infringement is so egregious please report your concerns to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, publicly accessible information is usually copyrighted. The same laws apply as if it was printed on paper or shown in a video. I assume you mean a common list of public information, like the names in the phone book, which itself cannot be copyrighted (in the U.S. or Australia,) since it doesn't meet the minimum requirement for being an expression of creativity. Other countries have different rules. --Light show (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Did anyone notice I said "...an actor's listed filmography..." in the Recent edits section up the page? Shearonink (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just did a quick count and found that the WP list is for 88 different films while the TCM list has 65. So it's not a cut and paste. The WP section also includes a unique Notes column.--Light show (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

With respect to this statement:

This edit asserts that TCM has some sort of claim over an actor's listed filmography...

I made no such claim; I did not invent that url, it was placed by the editor who tagged it as the source for the filmography section, and my only claim is about TCM's rights over material on their own website that is used on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) for which they assert Copyright.

With respect to this statement:

TCM cannot assert a copyright to publicly accessible information...

Whether TCM is in copyright violation of some other site or not is not germane; WP's only interest is that Wikipedia is not in violation. I'm saying that copying information from TCM is against Wikipedia policy, because TCM asserts Copyright protection over everything on their site, therefore we cannot use it (with the possible exception of short excerpts per Fair use).

With respect to:

Just did a quick count and found that the WP list is for 88 different films while the TCM list has 65. So it's not a cut and paste.

It doesn't matter if the two sections are identical. What matters is if we are in violation of WP policy concerning copyrighted material.

And just to end on a point of agreement, I agree with this comment of yours:

Regarding using these sources as references, I am sure the copyright mavens around here will fix everything up according to Hoyle.

Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Note Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., which explains why pure lists can't be copyrighted. But you added a tag based on someone's apparent cut-and-paste, which you now say "doesn't matter." Another problem is that you're using copyright details from TCM which cover their entire site, most of which is biographical text and film information, not lists.

Naturally, text information written by someone is protected. But not lists. Ironically, the WP filmography section is itself copyrighted because it has notes and cites, which gives it a high level of creativity. Add to that the fact the WP section includes 36% more film roles, makes the fear of copyvio a bit overboard. The tag should really be removed until you deal with those obvious issues. --Light show (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's so nice to have this discussion after a red-boxed COPY-PASTE/COPIED/COPYRIGHT Notice was placed on the article.

I was actually thinking of phonebooks and similar publications when I spoke of commonly-available information upthread, but let's make this crystal-clear that, as I said in the preceding section that it's lists of commonly available information that cannot be copyrighted.

Re: my statement of "This edit asserts that TCM has some sort of claim over an actor's listed filmography..." in the "Recent edits" section above I was referring to the edit summary:"Replace with selection of major films over her career, to avoid WP:COPYVIO from claims asserted by TCM at tcm.com/terms-of-use.html." And, of course, copying created text (that has some measure of creativity to it, not mere lists) from anywhere else is against fair use and justice and all that. I didn't even write the filmography, it just seems to me to be common-sense that it should stay in.

And this whole issue wold be taken care of if the references were laid out as TCM for one movie, TV Guide for another, Rotten Tomatoes for a third, maybe one of Miss Reynold's biographies or her autobiographical writings for a fourth and so on. I can just rotate the references between all the various projects. Shearonink (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding It's so nice to have this discussion after a red-boxed COPY-PASTE/COPIED/COPYRIGHT Notice was placed on the article. :

The Wikipedia Policy page called Wikipedia:Copyright violations recommends placing Template:copypaste on the article page or section. As far as I know, the color comes out red automatically; I certainly didn't ask for it to be red, and if there's a way to change it to another color, I certainly have no objection. The guideline also recommends opening a discussion about the possible copyright violation on the Talk page, which I've done, and suggestions adding a section to WP:CP, which I've also done. I believe I've followed all the recommend steps, and if I've missed one, I'm sorry, sometimes these rules can be pretty arcane.

Regarding let's make this crystal-clear that, as I said in the preceding section that it's lists of commonly available information that cannot be copyrighted. :

Yes, I understood your assertion (both times), and I'm no expert in copyright law so maybe what you're saying is true; but all I can say is two things: 1) TCM has a terms of use page where they say everything on their website is under their copyright, and 2) WP has a guideline that says we can't copy copyrighted material. I'm just trying to put 2 and 2 together and operate under those two guidelines, but if you're right about "lists not being copyrightable", then terrific—there is no problem, and we can all go home. But I'm not sure it's worth talking about that too much more, because unless you have some special knowledge in this area, we're just speculating; i.e., wasting our time.

The "rotating references" idea does sound interesting; I wonder if that's enough to resolve the issue. Shall we wait for the mavens to appear? Do we say xyzzy or Plugh or is there a better way? Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There's quite a few misconceptions in the above:

• Lists which consist purely of factual data, arranged in some obvious way, are not copyrighted (at least not in the United States) because you need at least a small amount of creativity in a work for it to qualify for copyright protection. If the source for this is just a list of every film Reynolds has appeared in, arranged chronologically, then it isn't going to qualify for copyright protection.
• Lists can be copyrighted if there is any sort of judgement in deciding which elements to include in the list or what order to display them in. For example a list of Reynolds' best performances would be copyrightable, because you could claim copyright on the decision that those performances are the best.
• The fact that a link includes a copyright notice doesn't make the contents copyrighted if it doesn't qualify for copyright protection in the first place.

Wikipedia:Copyright in lists elaborates on the copyright status of lists for Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 15:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Shearonink (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)