User talk:Nitelinger/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, Nitelinger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

WITI[edit]

Hi Nitelinger,

You've recently changed the WITI page to read that WITI used VitaScan from 1956 to 1959. But that is not what the source says: "WITI abandoned the system and switched to monochrome cameras in late December of 1957."[1]. Where is the reference for this? The inline citation I placed doesn't support that date. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the online source you cited is owned by...me! Since writing that, I came upon new information in my interviews with former WITI personnel indicating that the station continued to use Vitascan until after they completed the transition to their 27th Street building in 1959. If you check my page on Milwaukee TV history, you'll find that it now reflects that!Nitelinger 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nitelinger,

Thanks for the clarification, and the update on your web page. You run a lovely site that is very helpful for clearing up early Milwaukee TV history. I had a feeling the site was yours, based on this edit summary, and was surprised to see that the source didn't match the assertion. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia's Milwaukee TV station articles. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 16:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's been a real labor of love. I'm currently writing a book about Milwaukeee TV history, which is even more detailed, and -- I hope -- interesting! Nitelinger 03:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd buy a copy! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Image[edit]

If you dispute that the usage of that image qualifies under fair use law (I think it does, but I'm not a lawyer), then the way to handle it is to propose deleting the image. Instructions are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_for_deletion#Listing_images_and_media_for_deletion . If you get Wikipedia to agree, then the image will be deleted, and all articles that use it will be handled automatically.Kww 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things[edit]

The way to link directly to an image without actually showing it (as is proper on a Talk page) is simply to put a colon after the opening double brackets and before the image name, like this Image:ElviraWCGV08111984.jpg.
Fair use by definition does not require permission, from either the copyright holder or--as should be obvious--anyone else. The fact that your website was the immediate source of the image should be noted--as indeed, it always was. The fact that you sought and received permission from the copyright holder to post it on your website is not relevant to whether the image qualifies for fair use (i.e., no-permission-required use) on Wikipedia. The fact that you cleaned up the image, which you've recently mentioned, is worthy of respect and appreciation but is, again, irrelevant to its fair use--that is, it does not give you any particular right to control the image or demand permission for its use. Our article on fair use is pretty good and comprehensive and should be able to clarify these points for you. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 05:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned that article in no way clarifies fair use (as explained to me in my professorial days). You interpret it as allowing fair use on Wikipedia. I don't -- especially as it contains the station's logo. Nitelinger 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The station's logo is a trademark, an entirely seperate issue. Whatever disagreements there are about whether specific images qualify for fair use here or not, the appearance of images that happen to contain a commercial trademark on a not-for-profit, educational website is completely protected. I'm not saying there's no reasonable argument to be made against the fair use of this newspaper advertisement, it's just that you haven't made one to this point. Permission, trademark, and your work on the image are objectively not valid reasons for contesting its fair use on Wikipedia--I believe anyone familiar with fair use issues here would agree. If you have any other rationale, I'm ready to hear it--if it's reasonable and in accord with fair use law and Wikipedia fair use policy, I won't oppose the image's deletion. If, on the other hand, you don't, you might consider withdrawing the deletion nomination and we can work on drafting satisfactory credits for the image page.—DCGeist 05:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple: You email me and ask permission to use a graphic on my site. I tell you that while that particular version is one that I cleaned-up, it is nonetheless used with permission and that you'll have to ask the station (owner). You do so. They will likely grant permission, and if they do, and you ask politely, I probably will as well -- if you want to use the particular version on my site. Those are all (as a minimum) courtesies.

The silly system in-place here does not notify either the original copyright holder or the source of any text and/or images. It relies upon others using the system. The images are tagged for deletion, the person who uploaded the image pops up some boilerplate, and unless someone objects, the images stay. I happened to find this one by accident (there have been one or two others, as well as whole blocks of text), and would've had no way of knowing that the image was being used, and that I could object. Nitelinger 21:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made up a nice-sounding procedure. However, it doesn't have anything to do with fair use and how that works. I've attempted to explain. You clearly don't want to understand (or do, and choose to ignore it). Good luck.—DCGeist 01:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule warning[edit]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Midnight movie. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Three reverts in a blazing ninety-three minutes, which also happen to subvert the IfD process you initiated.—DCGeist 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are at the revert limit[edit]

Please let the image deletion process procede. If you revert that article again today, you will be blocked for breaking the 3RR rule.Kww 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL[edit]

You do understand that if someone releases something under GFDL, then anyone in the world can use that image for essentially any purpose, including making a profit? That they never have to contact the image owner again? That image owners that release under GFDL have far fewer rights than they have under the fair use rules? Kww 03:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I didn't say that he would GET permission, but he could at least have the courtesy to ask. Then the copyright holder(s) would at least know that someone wanted to use an image. Right now, if someone asks that an image be deleted, they have to inform the person who uploaded it. That person however, was not required to inform anyone under fair use. He can simply say , "Nanny nanny boo boo, I don't have to inform you — fair use!" I'm relatively new here, but candidly, that's why the procedure here is such a sham. Someone pops up an image and if it is copyrighted, they get a boilerplate notice requiring them to upload a fair use rationale. They put up some boilerplate re: how no free version is available, and how the article simply can't exist without the image, and unless some advocate objects, the image stays up. The original copyright holder isn't given the courtesy of an inquiry — but, boy, if someone nominates the image for deletion, they have to inform the person who uploaded it. Since the original copyright holder never knows, how could they object?

The law may allow that, but is it fair and proper?

Nonetheless, one can try to get such permission, and as a courtesy, one should try first. That appears to be a recommendation here, but how many actually follow it? It's far easier to simply claim "fair use" and not have to go through the rest of the work — or run the risk of being turned down and tipping off the copyright holder(s) that you want to use the image. Also, how can one claim that no free version is available, if one didn't try to get a particular image released under GFDL?

That's another reason why I support Angr's contention that a so-called "free encyclopedia" (which I discovered this afternoon) shouldn't include any "fair use" images. Further, as I state in one of my arguments for image deletion, if the image is online, one can simply provide text and link to the original location of the image, thus eliminating the entire question. People are used to that. It's an interactive medium! IMO DCGeist's arguments are incredibly weak — something you seem to agree with. I think the same can be said about the image's inclusion in the Cassandra Peterson article. One can simply state that the show was syndicated to station's around the country. Is the image a nice touch? Sure. Is it absolutely necessary to understanding the topic? No. One can get that "nice touch" (and more) by going to the page on my website

Had Dan asked me — even if he indicated that in his opinion it qualified for "fair use", I would've helped him contact the station (who might have had to turn the matter over to their corporate legal dept. — That might take time, as I well know.). That would've been a courtesy to both of us. They may not have granted a release under GFDL, but you don't know unless you ask. He could've then informed them (and me) that he thought it qualified under "fair use", and that he was going to use it. They (and I) could then decide whether to contest that here and/or take further steps. Of course, that would require that all of us familiarize ourselves with all of the policies and procedures here. That's a bit of a burden. I suspect that's another thing advocates of "fair use" here count on. Few are going to expend that kind of effort — and resources.

As a minimum, he would've earned some respect for having shown some courtesy, rather than simply saying that he doesn't have to ask for permission under fair use. I certainly don't trust him. The trust I've built up with the stations has given me access to lots of images and materials. In fact a manager at one told me a few years ago that: "You have been very respectful of those copyrights. We trust you. We don't know who we can trust beyond that." That trust took time to build up.

There are a lot of issues discussed in my response, but since you were kind enough to point me at the procedure for image removal, I thought that I would add a little bit. Thank you for pointing me in that direction. It took me a bit to figure out what was going on (I'm not happy about having to, BTW.), but I've now figured out that aspect of life here — although this whole matter has turned me off to sharing my knowledge here.

Oh, as an example, see the section on this matter in User talk:Angr Nitelinger 04:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you keep raising my name, allow me to address a couple points.

The standard for fair use here isn't that an image be "absolutely necessary" to understanding the topic. Our policy states, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I believe this image does significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in question, and I gave a detailed explanation of how in the IfD. You are free to disagree, of course, but I'll note that neither you nor anyone else has addressed my argument in equivalent detail, nor has anyone risen to the challenge of proposing text that would efficiently and effectively provide all the information the image does. Again, you may disagree without expending the effort to engage in a substantive debate, but if my argument is "incredibly weak" one shudders to imagine the appropriate verbiage to characterize the response.
There seems to be confusion over a few related concepts here.

"Permission": I couldn't ask for it, because we can't use an image here that's associated with a "permission."

"Courtesy": Yes, I could have contacted the TV station and said something like, "I intend to use the image of your old ad under free use. Do you mind terribly?" That hardly seems like the sort of courtesy that makes a difference to a TV station, though I could be wrong. As for you, I could have written something similar--"I intend to use an image of an old TV ad that I found on your website under free use. Do you mind terribly? Here's a link to the article--where your site is already credited--and here's what it will say on the image page..." That would have been possible, but it was not clear the depth of your involvement with the images on your website. The boilerplate legal language at the bottom of your website pages is unexceptional and does not affect fair use, the standard procedure for dealing with copyright images on Wikipedia. When your level of commitment to the image became clear, I did you the courtesy of spending my time and energy attempting to explain fair use both in general and here on Wikipedia and offering to collaborate with you on drafting appropriate credits. You dismissed those courtesies, gracelessly. Still, you continue to complain about others' lack of "courtesy." Whatever makes you happy.

GFDL: Here is the most valid point you have made: Indeed, it is best practice to request of any known and accessible copyright holder that they release a given image under GFDL. (Please note, we don't call that getting "permission" here and I don't believe anyone else does. As Kww notes, a GFDL release is full and permanent. "Permission" implies the permitter retains ultimate control over the artifact; a GFDL means control is ceded.) On the couple of occasions I have wanted to upload an image under the copyright of its individual author, I have done exactly that--inquired if the creator would release it under a GFDL. I do not do that with works under corporate copyright, created anonymously and/or as work-for-hire, like for instance, virtually all newspaper ads; instead I rely on a judicious selection of images and their application under fair use.

Again, I concede that it is best practice to request a GFDL, but there is the element of time (as you suggest) and field of focus. I devote my attention to writing, designing, and editing quality encyclopedia articles--part of our core mission. The writing/designing part--insofar as it involves finding images that will enhance readers' understanding of the topic matter and add to the encyclopedia's quality--sometimes comes into conflict with that other part of our core mission, creating an encyclopedia that is as free as possible. I devote my energies--perhaps to a fault--to the first aspect of our mission; others to the second. There are many people here who spend their time creating and soliciting free images and I applaud them. I devote most of my time to writing, designing, and copyediting because that's where my talents lie and that's where my energy is most productively spent. Given your explanation of your close working relationship with the TV station in question, perhaps the process of soliciting a GFDL in this case would not have been nearly so taxing as I assume. Indeed, the quality of your site suggests the unusually substantial access you have. Lesson learned.—DCGeist 06:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you think that the GFDL license would have been denied. Don't you think people would immediately assert fair use and take it anyway?Kww 13:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kww are you addressing this to me or the other response?

DCGeist Further, Criteria 1 for the use on non-free images states:

"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)"

That does not mean that you didn't take the time to find or create one, or to ask the original copyright holder for a GFDL license (effectively "creating" a free image.) What you just said was that you didn't want to take the time because you "devote my attention to writing, designing, and editing quality encyclopedia articles..."

This issues goes beyond this dispute. It is a much broader one here on Wikipedia. How many "fair use images" have been uploaded because the person doing so didn't want to take the time to find or create a free one? Nowhere in criteria 1 (which is an internal Wikipedia criteria, that is undoubtedly tougher than the law requires — but a good one if one wants to argue exceptions to the "totally free" philosophy.) does it say anything about "for expediency", etc. I would argue that criteria 1 is even more restrictive than criteria 8, and one where most who upload images for "fair use" aren't thorough enough. Nitelinger 18:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment on my site. It has been an incredible labor of love. The book has been the same. If I had only known how much work THAT would be... I have agreements with most of the corporate parents (major national and international players) to use the materials. It can be frustrating because of the delays, as their legal departments have other priorities, but eventually the agreements are worked out. It was nice to have one station manager read a draft of the chapter on them, and then personally present the permission request to their management. Others have been most cooperative. Today I received a permission for from an individual who provided a single photo that they owned. It's what has to be done... Nitelinger 04:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing[edit]

Since your website is listed at the bottom of each page as an external link, I wasn't sure whether citing was needed or not since I felt the link at the bottom was cite enough. I'll rethink this in the future and I do thank you for your research on everything. Nate • (chatter) 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenstein[edit]

Thank you for responding to me, which is a lot more than that other guy (jeffg) would do. I am unsure what it is Mr. Dettlaff contributed to the film (were the title cards his?) and I didn't even know such minor editing could be copyrighted. At any rate I apoligize for breaking Wikipedia protocol, and I thank you for the decency of an explanation. PS sorry for not leaving a proper signature like everyone else did, I was just unsure as to how to do it. ☺ —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSPaintnerd (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't a guy but a robot that automatically looks for certain things. That's a bit different than what I'm saying in that the title cards, sound track, inter-titles, etc. MAY fall under Al's copyright. Only a court could sort that out, but as I knew him the last few years of his life, I occasionally look for such things. Nitelinger (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Frankenstein[edit]

And if I took out the music and made my own title cards would the link be acceptable? Movie Maker and MSPaint should prove acceptable in this area. Seems like it might make for a cool project. Regards-MSPaintnerd (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me for a legal opinion that only a court can ultimately decide. I'd suggest that you consult a good copyright attorney. The original Edison title card (lost from Mr. Dettlaff's print) was found in some Edison archives. Fred Weibel sent Mr. Dettlaff a copy, and I have a photo copy of it. Fred has put together his own release of the film that he sells along with his book on the film. I haven't seen it, and have no idea re: it's status. Nitelinger (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]