Talk:Storm in a Teacup (film)

US release date

I'm inclined to go with the IMDb date of 25 February 1938 rather than the earlier 1937 one, as both newspaper reviews are from 1938. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which ones are more accurate, but IMDB is not reliable. I have made changes to IMDB because of actual sources found and because AFI Catalog has made errors that may affect the accuracies of this movie's American release and the reliabilities of sources. Still, Anne Edwards's 1970s biography of Vivien Leigh, a very old one, may be accurate about this movie, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Internet archive film

Not a copyvio, so removed template. These edits [1][2][3] to the article by George Ho (which I removed because I couldn't figure why he'd put the info in the article) confirm that the film was published in the US without copyright notice, meaning that it is now in the public domain in the US. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this movie's copyright was automatically restored in 1996 by Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The Notice of Intent to Enforce a Copyright was filed twice under doc. #V8007P611 and #V8007P572. --George Ho (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here's the source: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.pdf. Due to failures to comply with US laws in the past and first publication in the US more than 30 days after first publication abroad, this film is eligible for URAA. --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for the info. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I'm curious why you deleted George's well sourced and notable section about the films copyright status? Copyright status is an often discussed subject in certain films on Wikipedia. See Night_of_the_living_dead#Copyright_status for example, which is an entire section called "Copyright status" in a Featured Article. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've discussed this with George on his mentorship page. The problem is that he found the information out by hand checking all the registers himself, because he's interested in such things and particularly the impact of the Uruguay Round, which resurrects copyright (the source quoted above is a source for the effect of the Uruguay round. As far as I can see it doesn't mention the film anywhere). This makes it original research. In Night of the Living Dead, the copyright issue is referenced by at least one secondary source page 5, both because the duff copyright led to a court case and because it is the source's contention that the PD status of the film was a factor in it achieving widespread distribution and popularity. There's nothing like that for Storm in a Teacup, so it's not mentioned by any secondary source that George can find. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, are the document numbers of NIE that I have mentioned original research? --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, it should still be possible to report on what the registrars say and what the law says without actually concluding the work is or isn't in the public domain. There are articles all over Wikipedia saying this or that work is in the PD with zero (reliable) sources. See List of films in the public domain in the United States for example, go through that article and articles it links too. I doubt there are more than 5 or 10 articles in that entire list that have reliable secondary sources about the film's copyright status. There is a reason for this, there are few reliable secondary sources that report on film copyright status. Well there's one actually, Film Superlist, which is very expensive and off-line and incomplete. The vast majority of films silently lapse into the PD without any authoritative source saying so, it's not like you can Google it, in fact lawyers often intentionally keep it secret because they want to profit from the information by re-publishing PD works. So we have a problem on Wikipedia how to deal with it. We can play whack-a-mole and delete any mention of copyright status on the 20+ thousand PD films (though only a small percentage of those have a Wikipedia article) or we can figure out how to discuss copyright status through some sort of language that doesn't draw final conclusions about status, but still makes information available about existing laws and registrar data. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the place to make information available about existing laws isn't in articles about films. Unless there is a secondary source which covers the relevance to this particular film, it isn't for us to go digging in the registries for document numbers, and I completely agree with you about the reliable sources issue. Also, George's piece was more than the rest of the article put together, and was entirely about the law, with only an incidental mention of the film. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here I think as well. Other film articles may refer to copyright status. Without a reliable secondary source, this one doesn't have to - and certainly doesn't need two paragraphs, half a dozen footnotes explaining the law, and multiple references to primary sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So are Copyright.gov and Archive.org primary sources? --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

They are, yes. Like birth and death certificates or court papers. It's not wrong to do the research, particularly as there's a question of whether the internet film site is actually hosting a copyvio and should we be linking to it. And it would probably be OK to say that the film was published without copyright notice, if you had one of those government sources saying exactly that. Only you don't - unless I've missed something, you haven't provided a source that confirms that the film was published without copyright notice,, you've just seen the two documents where the filing parties say that the film was published without copyright notice, and they want to claim their rights under the URAA. That's like using court papers to source an article - it's a no no. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive.org actually isn't a primary, it's tertiary at best, like Wikipedia anyone can upload and say whatever they want, it's a world of pirates and wishful thinking. Copyright.gov is primary because the owners of the film registered the films directly. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

All right; the only sources to prove an omission of notice are the films themselves. I have researched the opening and ending credits; I found no notice. Is this a primary, yet reliable source? --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, because I presume you don't actually have a 1937 copy of the film from a US cinema. If the way that you're determining copyright is looking at the beginning and end of the copy that you do have, that really does fall into WP:OR territory. Back to my original position - find a secondary source that says that the films were originally released in the US without the proper copyright notice, or don't put it in the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

To Green Cardamom: Yes, the film is still copyrighted under URAA. However, even so, the Archive link is still active. I've already mentioned this to Archive.org at Email and forums; they still haven't taken it down yet. Until the link is dead, can we leave the link displayed? --George Ho (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

George, do you have a source that says the film copyright was restored under URAA? There are 4 requirements for the copyright to be restored. Would need a source that says this particular film met these 4 requirements. If we had such a source, we can produce other sources that say the film is in the public domain, and that would be considered a controversy, which is notable enough to include a sentence or two about in the article.

In regards to the Internet Archive link, if you think the film is copyright, why would you want to include an external link to it? There are pirated copies of material all over the internet, just because those links exist doesn't mean we link to them. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't worry, I won't link it back again after I found out the WP:External links. Also, I found the source from Copyright.gov. It is primary, unless it is not; http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr19287.html. --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! It's not a database, but a letter of notice specifically mentioning the film, it's not primary or original research in the sense of digging through databases to determine on our own what the copyright is. One of the complaint's above was excess length so I think we can do this briefly in two sentences without trying to interpret the law (taking sides) or linking to general sources, rather we are reporting on an apparent controversy over the films copyright status. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Rodgers Organization

I have sent an E-mail about the entry that lists this film. I hope: they respond back. --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My guess is since the film used to be PD it's on the list from pre-1996 along with many others that have since been reinstated by URAA, the list is out of date. But we don't know, the list may reflect Peter Rodgers research the film is PD and that URAA doesn't apply. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the whole section per this discussion. Begoon considers it Original research. --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the other hand, I will have added back two sources into "Further readings." --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)  Done adding one source to Further readings and PRO to External link. --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

George, there's something odd about the formatting of those two links. Can you format them properly and get rid of the "_____._____" - I don't know what that's supposed to be. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Done as bold. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Film copyright status

Regarding this:

The film was in the public domain, until January 1, 1996, when the copyright was restored<ref>[http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr19287.html Federal Register: April 17, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 74), Pages 19287-19366]. See notice for "Storm in a Teacup" pages 19299 and 19300. Accessed Jan 6, 2012.</ref> (as part of the [[Uruguay Round Agreements Act]]); however [[Peter Rodgers Organization]], one of the largest independent film distributors, lists the film as being in the public domain.<ref>[http://www.profilms.com/publicdomain/index.htm List of Public Domain Films], by [[Peter Rodgers Organization]]. Accessed Jan 6, 2012. See entry for "Storm in a Teacup".</ref>.

It's not OR. It's presenting two POV's on a subject. OR would be if we took a side in the debate. We are simply reporting on multiple POV's. This should be restored. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion on George's mentorship linked above? There is no "opinion" in the Federal document. It contains language specifically stating that it is not an opinion, and that any determination of status needs to be separately determined, under law. Regardless of that, there is no controversy reported by reliable third party sources in either source. Any determination that there is a controversy is based on our interpretation of 2 documents - that is OR. Without the claim to controversy, there is no notability, or reason to include. Begoon ^talk 01:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears "controversy" was taken literally to argue against on OR grounds, and not in its softer rhetorical sense as obviously intended. But the "controversy" language was removed and is not needed anyway. Re: legal opinion, that's fine a legal determination is not needed, we just need a POV - verify not truth. This document represents someone's POV that the copyright has been restored, namely the POV of the owner of the film. It may or may not be notable on its own (I believe it is notable), but we can also show there are contrary POV's, making it that much more notable. When there are multiple POV's on something we are supposed to report on them, not interpret them or pass judgement. The above simply reports there are multiple POVs and states what they are, it makes no judgement or conclusion about anything, it's not OR. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No - 'controversy' was an attempted end-run around OR. Maybe it's more helpful to say WP:SYNTH than just OR, but it's not what we do in either case. You are entitled to your opinion, but in this case I believe you are incorrect. We cannot take 2 sources we happen to find, decide how we interpret them, infer "opinion" status to them when one of them refutes in itself that use of it, and the other offers no opinion, decide for ourselves the implied opinion of an entity not referenced (the owner of the film), determine that therefore there is a situation worthy of note, and proceed on that basis. Surely you can see that requires a reliable third party source to make all those determinations, not us? I think my opinion is sound - obviously others may differ, and you have every right to do so. Begoon ^talk 02:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your position, you are saying we are "deciding how to interpret" the sources. Where? It's two sentences. Read it carefully. There is no interpretation. It is reporting what was said, by who, and where (who what where). That's it. There's no synthesis. If you still believe there is synthesis, maybe if you copy and paste the text you object to, and explain carefully your objection word by word so I can better understand your position in concrete terms. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What is being synthesised is the alleged notability of the copyright status of this film. No third party source has found this notable enough to comment on. Therefore we have nothing to report, except our interpretation. That synthesis is then relied upon as reason for insertion - but see below, because I suspect that we disagree on something more basic, really. Begoon ^talk 05:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not what WP:SYNTH says or is about, read WP:SYNTH more carefully. You are mixing concepts. There is nothing in that above text that breaks the core rules of OR. If there is, you should spell it out word for word, which words in the above text "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources?" Your argument appears to be based on notability, not OR or synthesis. You are complaining that I am attempting to show notability by including multiple sources. That is exactly what editors are supposed to do! Green Cardamom (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, to me it feels like synthesis, but I don't want to quibble about terminology. You say: "You are complaining that I am attempting to show notability by including multiple sources." - I'm really not. I'm saying that you are taking 2 sources, each not notable alone, and interpreting them yourself as possibly contradictory. Then that "contradiction" is your reason for notability. If no other commentator has remarked on the matter, it is not up to us to decide that 2 possibly contradictory sources mean there must be an issue of note. I can't explain this any better than I have already tried to do - but we seem to have moved on to a more general debate below, anyway. Begoon ^talk 00:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the difference of opinion we have here probably just boils down to whether copyright status is worthy of including without 3rd party opinions discussing it in a notable way. I don't believe it is. Begoon ^talk 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We show information about who directed a film, who stared in it, who produced it, the studio and even running time. Why that information and not copyright claimants, which arguably in the age of Internet piracy and films lapsing into the public domain is as important as ever? There is precedent, the The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures includes information about film copyright claimants, which is sort of the gold standard of film encyclopedias. You may believe otherwise, but I think most would agree Wikipedia could or should be as good as the best equivalent source and include information about copyright claimants, for that reason and other reasons. If you wish to challenge that I suggest we open this up to an RFC including notice on the WP Film Project and see what others think about rejecting copyright claimant information on Wikipedia except when discussed in 3rd party opinions. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Go right ahead if you feel that strongly. I think it's a good idea in that case. Having a firm consensus on a question like that would prevent long discussions like this. I'm only "involved" because George brought it to his mentorship page for opinions, and got some here and here. I don't have a strong opinion on the general question, although, as a reader, I probably would be against it as usually irrelevant and unnotable. I do see a problem with us deciding ourselves that we have detected an inconsistency by our own examination and analysis of sources, and reached a conclusion ourselves based on that analysis that there is therefore a notable issue to report upon.

We are supposed to research things to show or prove they are notable. Your position is that it's not notable, fine, but don't say it's OR, unless you can show an original idea or position being advanced. Notability is not an original idea! It doesn't work like that, just the opposite. It's our job to bring together multiple sources to show something notable. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If it were the consensus and norm that this information should be included regardless of notability being reported in 3rd party sources, then I would have no objection. There's also still, of course, the issue that the section said "The film was in the public domain, until January 1, 1996, when the copyright was restored", but this is sourced to a document listing Notices of Intent from the Copyright Office, which contains the text " Accordingly, the filing of an NIE indicates only that a party has claimed to own rights in a restored work; the filing does not represent a determination by the Copyright Office that this claim is valid. In all cases, the validity of such a claim is governed by the terms of the relevant law, including the URAA, as applied to the relevant facts". I'm still not sure if that's a problem - the title of the document (List Identifying Copyrights Restored Under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act for Which Notices of Intent To Enforce Restored Copyrights Were Filed in the Copyright Office) indicates it isn't a problem, and I may be taking it out of context, but I'd like to be sure.

You are right, the first sentence should be changed to "As of January 1, 1996, the film had a copyright claimant in the United States." That's all we need to say. Normally when speaking of copyright ownership, one speaks of "claimants" unless there is an actual court settlement where a judge ruled on it, which is rarely ever the case.Green Cardamom (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The honest truth here is that the reason for wanting to include this information is the discovery of a (possible) copyvio of the film on the internet. It's honourable that you want to help to combat piracy, but I don't think this helps at all, and even if it did, it isn't exempt from our rules. Get (or show) a ruling from a wide consensus that including a section on copyright status in all movies, regardless of the absence of 3rd party commentary indicating notability of this status, is good practice, and any objection I have vanishes. If such a consensus already exists and I just haven't found it or been pointed at it, then you will also have my apologies.

Actually all I'm trying to show is the film history. It has a copyright claimant, and there are distributors who say it is in the public domain. No court of judge has ever ruled on the case, and probably never will, so there is nothing definitive, nor probably will there ever be. How the reader of this article chooses to use this information is entirely up to them. Aggressive distributors may side with the public domain side based on historical precedent, cautious distributors may assume the films rights holders have the evidence to support their claim. Just because someone claims something doesn't mean they have met all the requirements. None of these things are our concern, we just make the information available to show readers the history of the film to use however they want. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, any opinion I have is just that, and my objection doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything here. I haven't made any alterations to the article, nor will I. George altered it based on my opinion, though. I support his alteration, but the article should reflect the consensus here, not my view.Begoon ^talk 05:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll wait for more comments before doing anything. I do believe copyright claimant information is an integral part of film history as has been shown in many other articles on Wikipedia and there's nothing inherently wrong with including that information in article, indeed should be standard just as done at the AFI Catalog. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think waiting for other feedback is sensible. I know this probably seems picky to you, but the situation is this: I was asked for an opinion by a mentoree, and gave a similar opinion to his other mentors that there was really no reason to include this information, absent reason it was considered notable. Over the course of the discussion there have been many attempts to alter the content to make it "acceptable". I maintain that this is entirely the wrong way around. First we should find evidence of reliable sources reporting on copyright status in a way that is notable - only then do we have anything to actually report. If, instead, we decide to research the copyright status ourselves and include it regardless of 3rd party commentary, then we are making an error - unless consensus is, as you think it should be, to include copyright status regardless (giving it inherent notability). Then it would, indeed, be all fine and dandy (provided, of course that we have good sources/references).

One of the problems I have with agreeing that it should be a "default" item like "who directed a film, who stared in it, who produced it, the studio and even running time." is that it isn't the same kind of information to me. All of the things listed there are things I think I, as a reader, am likely to use a site like "Wikipedia" to "look up". These are the things "everybody wants to know" when they ask about a film. I honestly can't think of a situation where, as a reader, I'd do the same for "Copyright Status".

I'm also a bit concerned that adding this kind of info to all film articles will involve lots of to and fro discussion about copyright law between editors, who are unqualified to judge this usually, and, in any event, as we can see from this discussion, it's often very hard to reach a conclusion. So, really, it's going to be an item prone to errors and interpretation, included because we think we ought to (maybe to be "as good as" a catalog - maybe to help combat piracy - maybe just because we can).

Take just this case as an example. We still don't know if the Peter Rodgers reference is an error. According to above, we've emailed them and had no response. Yet this is one of our 2 "references". We're still not sure if the other reference proves copyright, or claim to copyright. Yet, instead of realising that we are not copyright researchers or lawyers, we have argued many thousands of words on the subject. That is wrong. We should be reporting on well supported facts if there are any showing that the copyright status is abnormal, interesting, or notable. It seems in this case it's not actually known - but that's a result of our research. Instead we are still trying to alter the wording of our content to make it "appropriate". Sorry - that's just not right to me.

We've established that we cannot 100% judge the copyright status - but that's ok, because no reliable source appears to have done so in a notable way for us, and it's not our job - so we have nothing to worry about or include until a source discusses it. Maybe the online 'copyvio' is a copyvio, and maybe an RS will pick up the story, or there will be a court case about it. Then there will be something we can and should include. Begoon ^talk 00:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"I honestly can't think of a situation where, as a reader, I'd do the same for "Copyright Status". Oh that's easy, just go to Internet Archive, pick a film that claims to be in the public domain, and ask yourself how likely you are of breaking the law by downloading it. IA has zero sources and information, users upload films and say they are in the PD, many of them are not. It's a minefield. Most users have no idea how to check copyright databases or that one even exists, but many users read Wikipedia and would quickly ascertain that there is a copyright claimant and from that could better decide on the authority of the claim. In the era of the Internet where unlimited copies can be made for free, and where certain films are in the public domain, copyright information is one of the more important pieces of information to make as widely available as possible. Copyright is something that impacts the lives of everyone who downloads films from the Internet. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer that, because it refers back to another point I made above. You refer to this as a "minefield", and it is. Yes - someone may come to WP, see a section indicating a film they are about to download might not be PD, and be inspired to do some more research, ending with them not downloading the film. I don't think that is going to happen nearly as often as you think, but, regardless of how often it does, what about the person who comes to WP, and based on our information, makes the wrong decision - maybe going on to host an illegal copy. Unless you have a team of copyright lawyers vetting our statements, we can only guess or provide non-definitive information in many cases (like this one). The problem is, if you are going to introduce a section called "Copyright Status", and you are doing so in the hope that this will help users make copyright decisions, you need to be very sure what you say in that section is correct, and useful, which is obviously problematical, just from looking at the huge discussion here about just one film. If the section does become a "standard", then some readers may even draw inferences from any articles it is omitted from because we can find no sources. This could be seen as a "green light" - "Well, I checked Wikipedia, and it had no copyright details, so I thought it was fine..." I'm not being deliberately difficult, here, just concerned that this would be using Wikipedia in a way not intended. Begoon ^talk 23:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am outdenting the conversation. You two can reply to each other below here without indenting too much. --George Ho (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks George. I sneaked one in above... I'd also be interested in your opinion here, since we really need other voices in this discussion. Obviously, I suspect I already know your opinion, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't share it here. Begoon ^talk 23:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright determination is very important; nevertheless, original research is not allowed. To include two sources without OR requires another source that significantly covers the film's copyright. Begoon has a good point; Green Cardamom is correct about the sources. I have no clue how encyclopedia articles work, but I'm still working on One for the Road (Cheers). In fact, that topic is easier than the film's copyright alone, and the Cheers episode is more interesting than this film alone. Two sources, if not reliable, may be suitable for "Further reading" and "External link", as I boldly did.

By the way, I have learned, without reading the policy a lot, that, to avoid original research, maybe we can publish our own analyses into paper instead of online and then source our own work, unless they are unreliable. I don't want to publish our ananlyses into blogs or online-only copies. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The last bit sounds a bit tricky to me. You can, of course, publish your own analysis wherever you like, separate to your work here, and if they are published in a way that makes them a reliable source, they can be used like any other reliable source. Of course, you've then got to consider WP:COI in relation to that material. Your problem would be to find an RS willing to publish your research. As you say, blogs and the like are an absolute no-no. That's off-topic, though... In reality - we are usually better off reporting the information we can find than trying to find ways to include research we have done ourselves. Begoon ^talk 00:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think three things. (1), someone should post a question at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard to get more people in the discussion. (2) George, at your leisure you should read WP:RS, particularly WP:USERG, also WP:V particularly WP:SPS. It is possible to do exactly what you describes - Dr Gill did it quite legitimately on the subject of the Monty Hall problem, but then he's a professor and he published it in a peer reviewed journal. I'm not sure one of us could achieve quite that level of reliability. (3) I think your solution of putting copyright related external links is quite neat.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"(3) I think your solution of putting copyright related external links is quite neat." I second that - links (without our own opinion/analysis) to information like this in a section intended for readers who want to do more research of their own. Seems pretty good to me. Begoon ^talk 00:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

without our own opinion/analysis, you keep saying that, but the proposed text doesn't include opinion or analysis. I'll repeat the proposed text here since it changed along the way:

"As of January 1, 1996, the film had a copyright claimant in the United States;(ref to Copyright Office letter) however Peter Rodgers Organization, one of the largest independent film distributors, lists the film as being in the public domain.(ref to PRO)"

No original opinion or analysis, just reporting the facts. There is stuff like this all over Wikipedia. Maybe not on Copyright issues, but using two different sources to show 2 different POVs on a topic. Your concern is Notability, not OR. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't want to quibble about terminology. You are correct, my concern with that addition is notability. There have been OR concerns earlier in the discussion, at one point it was conjectured that 2 possibly contradictory sources means we can report it as a controversy. We seem to now have moved on to discussing whether copyright status should be included by "default", which sort of gives it "inherent" notability. You think it has this notability, so you disagree when I suggest we might be (improperly) determining that for ourselves in this case, by determining that we interpret there to be something notable from what we think the 2 references mean in relation to each other.

I also think it's probably a good thing if I point out here that I feel whatever we end up deciding here, this has been a valuable discussion for all concerned. I've certainly been forced to re-examine my opinion a few times, and there are some important questions here. Until we get some outside input, though, I think we should avoid circular restatements of our opinions (of which I am clearly the most guilty) - so that's my plan. If we propose to ask for input, I would rather not frame the question myself - do you feel able to do that? I think it would be a more positive, helpful question coming from someone on your "side" of the discussion - more likely to address your real concerns. I think there is certainly enough here for the RFC you suggested earlier, and I'm happy to help with that if you want me to.Begoon ^talk 02:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I already started a discussion at WP:Film though they seem just as confused as anyone, but learned there probably isn't a precedent discussion. Another place to discuss might be WP:Copyright but that's more for policy than content. It may require a RFC, I dunno if I'm that motivated, would have to actually propose something concrete and follow up on it if it passed. The biggest hurdle IMO is people's misconceptions about copyright and overcoming biases against corporations which is one of the systemic ones on Wikipedia. Anything that supports corporate claims and sets out to potentially stop free use of material will automatically be eyed with suspicion by many people and get resistance, even if worded neutrally like above. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just thinking out loud, anyone feel free to add or edit, quickly jotting down the questions we'd like answered:

• Should "Copyright Status" of a film be notable, in itself, without secondary sources which discuss it in a notable way?

I think you mean secondary sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

*Should every film article have a section called "== Copyright Status ==" in order to provide a level of information equivalent to other publications like AFI catalog?

Wasn't proposing that. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

*What should that section contain, and how do we reference it?

Entire section is overkill and certain to cause problems. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

and, not directly related to the "meta" questions:

• Assuming that "Copyright Status" has not been established to have "inherent" notability, would it be acceptable/desirable to include the material as discussed in this section?

Not very well worded, but one has to start somewhere. Begoon ^talk 03:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

An RFC needs to be agreed on so the wording is acceptable before it's put up for wider discussion otherwise it's just one parties proposal which can be presented to fail from the start. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Still don't see the harm in extra input, but take your point. I've made the corrections you suggested above. Begoon ^talk 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added the RFC tag at the top. If any objects, you may revert immediately before the robot automatically adds the OP. --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Any new input is likely to be valuable here, since we appear to be at an impasse. Thanks Begoon ^talk 03:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not an RFC, it should be removed. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in asking for extra input to this discussion. That's all that tag does. Anyone who wishes to can still continue drafting a full, formal RFC page, or section. Begoon ^talk 03:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I must archive the whole page, including this section, if Green and Begoon approve. I will add a "Request for comment" section later. --George Ho (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't archive an active discussion, please, George. Begoon ^talk 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is active and stays. What about other sections? --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, just the first section meets any sensible archiving criteria I can think of. Begoon ^talk 03:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Asking for input is fine, but not making a concrete proposal that would never pass. No one would support an entire new section in every film article(!) just for copyright info, that's crazy, Begoon. That's what I said we need to work through this and think about it. For example I think the articles most relevant are those films made in the USA 1923-63 since they are the only ones where copyright is usually ever in question. Further, do we make Copyright Claimant part of the infobox, External links or film history and distribution sections? If the later, how is it worded. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but "crazy" is a bit emotive, if you don't mind me saying so, considering you said: "I do believe copyright claimant information is an integral part of film history as has been shown in many other articles on Wikipedia and there's nothing inherently wrong with including that information in article, indeed should be standard just as done at the AFI Catalog." above, and that I specifically said I was trying to help by jotting down a starting point for others to edit, and that my initial wording there was "not very good". Begoon ^talk 04:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the wording of your last post - it's tricky for me to do that, given that I'm actually opposed to a "standard" copyright entry like this, as you know. I'd prefer, in order:

1. Not at all, unless discussed notably elsewhere.

2. As an external link for readers to research themselves, with no commentary.

....big gap...

3. Infobox (still don't like it - what do we say in infobox? - Or just a link to a document we think relevant?)

....big gap...

4. Anything else

(but I'm actually not in favour of #3 or #4 at all, just ranking them.)

I have no idea how I would go about wording your other idea of restricting it to a certain group of films, sorry, although I do understand why you think it might help. I'd find it difficult to include that and not make it a complex question overall. If anything occurs to me on that aspect, I'll post it. Begoon ^talk 05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

May be trying to accomplish too much. How about a simple RFC for inclusion of the proposed text, in this article only:

"As of January 1, 1996, the film had a copyright claimant in the United States;(ref to Copyright Office letter) however Peter Rodgers Organization, one of the largest independent film distributors, lists the film as being in the public domain.(ref to PRO)"

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - that could work. If we can get good consensus for that, it overrides my concern, here, and probably at any other film article where the same situation applies. Begoon ^talk 05:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you summarize your concerns about the above proposed text? We've established it is not OR since nothing is being synthesized, no original POV is being put forward (it takes no position if the film is PD or not). I believe you believe it is not notable, is that correct? Can you say why copyright claimant information is not notable in a film encyclopedia article? Any other rules concerns besides notability? Thanks. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, it's already gone on a long time. The best summary I can give you is this. There could be doubts raised about what exactly the existence of either reference "means". That's not a big concern, though - what is important to me is that I don't believe it is up to us to decide what we think it proves to have these 2 references. Alone, neither reference is notable. Together, they would only be notable if we interpret one as contradictory to the other, or draw other conclusions. If you think they're both notable on their own, then that is where we differ.

I will, however, also reiterate that I don't hold a strong opinion on this. I was asked for an opinion initially, and I gave it. It hasn't really changed much. I don't feel strongly enough about it, though, to alter this article if you add that information, or to feel in any way "upset" if you do so. I just don't agree, is all. I think you should consider, though, that the conversations at George's mentorship and the one you started at the project also have people seeming to express some concern about this notability. All my other opinions as to why I might think this are above, at far too much length, so I doubt I can add much more after this. Begoon ^talk 08:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to spend a lot of time on it maybe we shouldn't go the RFC route and I'll just add it to the article, pending any objects. It's not my intention to go on a campaign of adding this type of info to other articles. Let me know if you (or anyone else reading) still want an RFC. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well... don't add it yet. I know you want it added, and I do, too. Nevertheless, Begoon's ground still stands; let's have RFC in separate section, please? --George Ho (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to get that answer from an RFC. It doesn't even stop anyone from including the material here in the meantime if they want to. If you are going to start an RFC though, please get the question agreed here first, to make sure everyone is happy with what is being asked. Begoon ^talk 22:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I would of course work with everyone to ensure the RFC is satisfactory before advertising it. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus to include copyright status. --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Is the below acceptable?

As of January 1, 1996, the film had a copyright claimant in the United States; however Peter Rodgers Organization, one of the largest independent film distributors in the United States, lists the film as being in the public domain..

References

I wonder: is the below entry all right for you people to be added into this article?

The film was in the public domain, until January 1, 1996, when the copyright was restored<ref>[http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr19287.html Federal Register: April 17, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 74), Pages 19287-19366]. See notice for "Storm in a Teacup" pages 19299 and 19300. Accessed Jan 6, 2012.</ref> (as part of the [[Uruguay Round Agreements Act]]); however [[Peter Rodgers Organization]], one of the largest independent film distributors, lists the film as being in the public domain.<ref>[http://www.profilms.com/publicdomain/index.htm List of Public Domain Films], by [[Peter Rodgers Organization]]. Accessed Jan 6, 2012. See entry for "Storm in a Teacup".</ref>.

The above article explains two contradictions from Peter Rodgers Organization and a Notice of Intent and URAA from Copyright.gov. --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I would disagree with adding this information. It is OR to say that the film was in the public domain but copyright was restored. You have no reference that (a) the film was released in the US in 1937 without the appropriate copyright notices (you are depending on George Ho reporting that his copy of the film doesn't have a copyright notice, and with the greatest respect, he cannot guarantee that he has an exact copy of what was shown in cinemas in 1937), (b) copyright has actually been restored (you are depending on George's understanding of the significance of the URAA). The reference provided contains neither piece of information. Also, I see no reason for the article to contain information about the film's copyright status unless secondary sources refer to the copyright being controversial, disputed or otherwise worth comment in secondary sources. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The revised suggestion by Green Cardamon is at least factual and does avoid OR - Begoon is right, none of us is qualified to decide whether it is or isn't copyright. However, I still cannot see the point of including it. People come to film articles to see who was in it, who directed it, what the plot was, did it have a previous version, was it remade etc etc. Info that Wikipedia is probably reliable enough for. People who have a need to know the copyright status of the film (internet distributors, film festivals) should consult a copyright lawyer anyway, so I'm far from convinced that the info is of interest to anyone.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'd go a step further than that. Given that we are not qualified to judge copyright status, we are also not qualified to select what information people need to see on the matter. When we select items such as this, and present them as above, we run the risk of misleading people into possibly believing that we have presented them with all the relevant info. We can't explain the content because if we tell them why we think it's significant, we break OR. If we don't explain it, then it's somewhat pointless and confusing for the reader. In this case, even the word "however" in the proposed addition implies that we see a contrast or contradiction between the 2 sources, and it could be argued that even that is really further than we should strictly go, though that would be pedantic. The point is, once you strip out all the things we can't say, all we are left with is 2 independent, pretty banal statements to make. We aren't really 100% sure what either of them actually means in full, but we want to present them as random "factoids" for the reader, because we think it's important for some not very clear reason that we include something. That's what I disagree with. Begoon ^talk 14:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Again I think you've made it too complicated, your trying to interpret what it means rather than just reporting what the reliable sources say on a notable subject. You may be right there is more to know than written here, but that's not reason to exclude information entirely. Remember, Verifiability, not Truth. You are seeking truth, which is admirable, but if truth is your threshold, than very little can be said about copyright in most of the films in this class. I am simply seeking to report on what reliable sources say. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask you people these: are these two sources reliable? Why are they reliable? How? What do they confirm? What do they explain? Do they contradict each other? I have already confirmed the release dates, haven't I? Sources of release dates contradict each other: AFI and Vivien Leigh bio. Which one's riskier: the release date or copyright status? --George Ho (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see this question last time, sorry George. All of those questions are asked or touched upon in this very long debate and the discussions preceding it, and opening up another discussion about all of those details here would be a bit messy. However, to me, your question exemplifies the problem. You have spent a long time thinking about this, it is an area that interests you, and even you, with your knowledge and expertise, can't answer all those questions confidently. I can't either. That's a large part of why I disagree with the addition - it's certainly unnecessary, and possibly, with the concerns, even unsound (I don't know). Wait until an RS reports on it in a notable way, and all these concerns just disappear, because then it would be the correct thing for us to do to report that. If they don't, no problem - we have nothing to report or worry about. Begoon ^talk 00:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My calculations are correct: Elen and Begoon would over and over oppose the addition, and Green would over and over go for it. I created the RFC because I feared that Green would go bold and that the controversy would spark among all sides. My work to expand this article is done already, and I have no need to expand the article any further, unless one critic likes or hates it, or I see the film enough to expand the plot. I know the consequences that I must prevent from happening again by creating RFD and more discussion. I know that RS is needed to confirm the copyright controversy that is yet to happen. However, as mentioned, I'm done expanding this article for now. Just in case, I have brought this attention to the WikiProject Film to bring in more consensus. --George Ho (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your calculations are spot on George. Everything you have done here has been correct, helpful, and thoughtful. Thank you. I intend to leave this to fresh minds to decide, because I have given the opinion I was initially asked for long ago in so many different ways there is little I could add. I don't think it's a massive issue on this one article alone - I wouldn't even bother to revert and argue, because it's not important enough here. I'm afraid though, that I can't change my opinion that details like this are not notable in general, and that independently finding/presenting what we ourselves judge to be relevant copyright related data snippets is not what we should be doing in articles, for all the reasons already mentioned. Begoon ^talk 02:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree Anybody interested in the tedious details of why I disagree can read the reams of ;tldr in the sections above if they are very bored. To save them that agony, my opinion is, briefly: Neither referenced item is, by itself notable. Constructing/inferring notability from 2 independent sources in this way requires us to make judgements and interpretations that we should not be doing. Also, per Elen, the copyright status of this film is only worthy of inclusion if there is something notable related to it which reliable sources comment upon. Begoon ^talk 01:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agree I clearly don't agree with the original format or wording of this RFC, so I did a bold edit strike out and re-worded per our previous discussion above. Elen is spot on about it being a OR (core rule) violation. It is now fixed and is just a question of notability. Wikipedia has determined that films in the PD are notable. This can be seen by the existence of the article List of films in the public domain in the United States, and the 100s of film articles that say a film is in the PD (most with no sources, just common knowledge). Copyright, in regards to PD status, is well established to be notable by many Wikipedia editors. Peter Rodgers Organization appears to be a reliable source given its size and stature in the industry. So we can report that Peter Rogers reports the film is in the PD, but if we do, we also have to report on what the Copyright Office records show since they are contradictory, to show multiple POV's, per Wikipedia guidelines. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'll copy down something I said in the above discussions which comes to mind again here:

"We still don't know if the Peter Rodgers reference is an error. According to above, we've emailed them and had no response. Yet this is one of our 2 "references". We're still not sure if the other reference proves copyright, or claim to copyright. Yet, instead of realising that we are not copyright researchers or lawyers, we have argued many thousands of words on the subject. That is wrong. We should be reporting on well supported facts if there are any showing that the copyright status is abnormal, interesting, or notable. It seems in this case it's not actually known - but that's a result of our research. Instead we are still trying to alter the wording of our content to make it "appropriate". Sorry - that's just not right to me. We've established that we cannot 100% judge the copyright status - but that's ok, because no reliable source appears to have done so in a notable way for us, and it's not our job - so we have nothing to worry about or include until a source discusses it. Maybe the online 'copyvio' is a copyvio, and maybe an RS will pick up the story, or there will be a court case about it. Then there will be something we can and should include. " Begoon ^talk 07:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I think you're confused about investigating the copyright of a work -versus- simply reporting on what the sources say. It's not complicated, we just report what the reliable sources say. We are reporters, not investigators. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I am not confused. I am very clear that we should not be selecting sources and interpreting them ourselves in this way in order to 'demonstrate' what we think is something significant enough to report - particularly when we aren't even sure what the information means. I gather from the other discussion you linked, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Copyright_claimant_data, that you may wish to include this kind of information in many film articles, and maybe that discussion will develop in the way you wish. Hopefully if it does so it will find answers to the potential problems and issues we have discussed with including copyright information like this in articles, some of which it touches on, and some we have discussed here. I notice in that discussion you have said: " I can point to endless discussions on Internet Archive for example as people there try to determine if a film is PD or not - these people obviously need access to copyright claimant information." - perhaps they do, but I don't see Wikipedia as a place to provide items of data for a copyright investigation, and if that's why we are trying to include this information, I think it is wrong to do so. As Elen says, a copyright lawyer, or their own detailed research, is how people wishing to determine copyright status should proceed. Setting ourselves up as a source of copyright information seems just too fraught with issues to me.

I'll say, though, that the part towards the end of the other discussion, from Betty Logan is very sensible, where use of Categories is explored, and looks interesting to me, addressing some of the concerns I have. You'd still have the potential "nightmare" of finding sources for all of the entries in the list article it proposes, but I think it could be far more sensible than trying to put little entries like this in all film articles, and at least you'd be concentrating a lot of the effort (and possible problems) in one place. I'm still not really keen, because it still feels outside of what we should be doing, but if we decide that we should be in the business of adding copyright data, that looks like a better approach than this, to me.

In the meantime, I disagree with this particular addition for the reasons I have stated. Given the views here and in that discussion, you shouldn't be surprised that I would oppose "jumping the gun" and starting to include this kind of thing in advance of discussions like that being settled. I don't intend to contribute again to this RFC, unless it's unavoidable, because I would like it to be a discussion with fresh insight, not just a continuation of our earlier, circular debate, and I have said way too much already. Begoon ^talk 00:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The public domain status of film is well established as being notable on Wikipedia. If all we did was report a single secondary source as saying the film is PD you probably would be OK with it (since so many other articles already do this). You seem though to have a problem when we report two secondary sources reporting conflicting information, because it is confusing and unclear. The world is very often full of conflicting confusing information and so is Wikipedia. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral - I'm a little confused right now. However, at least the current one is better than the more-OR struck proposal. I'll change my vote once this section receives a larger consensus. --George Ho (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.