Template:Did you know nominations/Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network Inc.

The following discussion 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 Orlady (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network Inc.

(

)

... that according to a U.S. Federal court opinion, Kodak Imaging Network was not liable for copyright infringement, as it relied on an automated photofinishing process?

Created by Sashashekhar (talk). Nominated by Info235sp14-ask (talk) at 23:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

Article was moved from personal sandbox to article space on 4 March, and nominated for DYK the next day. Text is about 7kB, well over the required 1500 characters. Many of the included references are blogs (refs 4, 8, 11, 13, and 14), three are to aggregator blogs (ref 9, which basically quotes a Consumerist article similar to ref 11, and TechDirt refs 10 and 12), and one is an information aggregator (ref 3, which should be replaced with the original source). I'll accept refs 4 and 13, as they seem to be from a reputable expert in the field, and ref 14 may be acceptable for the same reason. That leaves refs 8-12 as requiring excision or replacement, and as they are all used for the same sentence, this should be trivial. Other sources are OK, though lack of page numbers for reference 1 in the DMCA section makes reviewing this article quite frustrating; a reader should not have to hunt within the source document to verify information. The same statement applies to the use of reference 2 for the last few sentences of the DMCA section; for such a long source, please identify the section supporting the claims in the article. The DMCA section also has "likelihood of harm" in quotation marks, but the phrase does not appear in the source, which states "irreparable harm absent injunctive relief" on page 4; is there a reason for the quotation marks? One minor BLP issue is the inclusion of the quotation "overzealous copyright owners", as it seems clear that Sheila Wolk was clearly trying to prevent unauthorized distribution and use of her work, especially given that various entities earned revenues as a result. No QPQ required for this third-party nomination, but one is always welcome. Hook is 164 characters and sourced, though I would prefer a different hook, as this one doesn't clearly establish the causal factor for the decision. Mind matrix 14:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have just reviewed the changes in this set of edits; the new changes are OK and sourced, and thank you for adding page numbers to the citations. The only change required is to convert the inline links (to § 512(c) and § 512(j)) into proper sources. Mind matrix 17:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mindmatrix, thanks a lot for your in-depth review and your edits. The hook that I proposed is, in my opinion, one that could be the most interesting to the general audience, and describes a key fact involving the decision. Even if you think otherwise, I'm not sure how that makes the hook not preferable. If you think there could be a better hook, please don't hesitate to propose an alternative; I'd be happy to discuss. I will otherwise champion this one. Thanks again. Info235sp14-ask (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Mindmatrix: I've added page numbers for all citations where possible. I've also added citations to the United States Code where the article references the statute. Do you see any other defects? Morninj (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

All new additions are fine, and thanks again for adding page numbers. Outstanding issues are the following:

Photobucket image cannot be used under fair use on this article, and I suspect that the Kodak Imaging one cannot be used either
the BLP issue regarding inclusion of the quotation "overzealous copyright owners", as stated above, as I think this unfairly maligns the artist

Once these minor issues are resolved, it's good to go. Mind matrix 21:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've (1) removed the logos and (2) edited the quotation to resolve the BLP issue. Morninj (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to go. Mind matrix 23:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)