Template:Did you know nominations/Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 04:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co., Catch of the Day

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that in Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co., Judge Lewis A. Kaplan cited Thomas Mangelsen's Catch of the Day as a photograph so original in its timing that it could be copyrightable for that alone?

Source: "A modern work strikingly original in timing might be Catch of the Day, by noted wildlife photographer Thomas Mangelsen, which depicts a salmon that appears to be jumping into the gaping mouth of a brown bear at Brooks Falls in Katmai National Park, Alaska ... the copyright in Catch of the Day does not protect against subsequent photographs of bears feasting on salmon in the same location. Furthermore, if another photographer were sufficiently skilled and fortunate to capture a salmon at the precise moment that it appeared to enter a hungry bear's mouth — and others have tried, with varying degrees of success ... Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co., 377 F.Supp.2d 444,453 (S.D.N.Y., 2005)

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nicol Spence Galbraith

Moved to mainspace by Daniel Case (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 280 past nominations.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC).

Daniel Case, since this is a two-article nomination, two QPQs are required, not just one (the auto-generated requirement above apparently can't handle multi-article hooks properly. Please supply a second QPQ. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, fine ... maybe the nominating template needs to make this clearer? Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: While I can't help but note that as I type this, the text has a clearly boldfaced "1" next to "Number of QPQs required", I will nonetheless submit that I have reviewed Upper Ivory Coast and, I hope, cleared it for takeoff to the Main Page after over two months. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - For Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co., there are a few lengthy quotes. Are all of these quotes needed, and/or are they in the public domain? Both articles also use a bunch of text from the court case itself, but that should be fine since federal court decisions are public domain (by virtue of being published by an employee of the US government in the course of their work).

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Daniel Case: Nice work, and it's a shame that it took so long for these articles to be reviewed. I'm just waiting on the additional QPQ, as well as some clarification on the quotes. Epicgenius (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: As I noted above (it may not have been easy to see), I reviewed Upper Ivory Coast yesterday. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed that. However, the four lengthy quotes still seem a bit excessive. Unless they're freely licensed, could some of them be paraphrased? Epicgenius (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: OK, I trimmed down the quoting in that section. How does it look now? Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (Earwig still highlights a bunch of stuff, but they're all either proper names, short quotes, or quotes from the decision itself.) Epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)