Entertainment desk
< April 11	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 12[edit]

People section[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1970s Is there a reason why 2000s hasn't got a "people section" the ones from 1990s and 80s are pretty perfect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.0.85 (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1980s and 1990s pages don't even HAVE "people" sections. --Khajidha (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1970s article has ‘’people section’’ where musicians filmmakers of decade are listed etc. For 80s and 90s they haven’t named a people section but they’ve placed it under pop culture instead. Was just wondering to the people who made it is there a reason why there isn’t ‘’people section’’ made for 2000s and 2010s decade? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.128.106.99 (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are unlikely to find or be able to contact any of the dozens of people who worked on those articles here. If you want to, you can use the "History" tab at the top of the articles in question, and find who is responsible for each change to those articles, and ask them. --Jayron 32 13:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best to start with some of the most recent editors to work within that section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Come Together" music video[edit]

Here is a YouTube video of Come Together by The Beatles. Is the video (apart from the song itself) an authentic 1960s production by The Beatles or has it been added to the song later? JIP | Talk 22:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't answer my question (or I fail to understand the reply). Was the music video originally made in the 1960s or is the video part a modern invention? JIP | Talk 23:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is right, that doesn't answer the question (copyright could have been renewed). Clearly this is a modern video, it was not made at the time the song was first released. --Viennese Waltz 08:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, not legal advice but Copyright renewal in the United States has not existed since 1992. (It's still relevant for some older works in determining if they are still under copyright but that renewal would have had to happen a very long time ago.) Copyright renewal outside the US is either extremely rare or non existent, hence why Copyright renewal redirects to the US article and List of countries' copyright lengths only mentions renewal for one country and Commons:Help:Public domain likewise. My understanding is Copyright notices always had first publication year anyway, see our article and [1] Copyright notices aren't really required for protection in most countries anymore, however they can convey some benefits and these benefits will potentially be lost if the copyright notice is invalid. Therefore for a professional work, I would expect copyright year to generally have some intentional meaning. This doesn't of course mean the entire work was first published in the year of the copyright notice. It could simply be that some elements of the work are claimed to be copyrighted in that year i.e. it's a derivative or compilation with sufficient creativity (or whatever) to be eligible for copyright and these components are copyrighted in that year. This is why with websites you'll often see they are copyrighted in the current year, changes may have been made in the current year. The upshot of all this is that while perhaps it's not perfect, the copyright year in the Youtube description is strongly indicative that it's not entirely an authentic 1960s production. Some elements of it are likely new otherwise they would not claim a 2015 copyright. This could of course simply be enhancements to the video like blowing it up and improving part which don't look right at high resolution, or perhaps even just remastering the audio. (Not the case here of course.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was created for Beatles 1, released in 2015 (the video, the audio disks were released in 2010). Melon Dezign did the video according to the credits. 68.115.219.139 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth pointing out that, from the credits on YouTube, this rendition of the song is a 2015-released remaster of the original recording, so strictly speaking this particular rendition is itself not entirely "an authentic 1960's production." Also, Calderstone Productions (linked by 107.15.157.44) is an entity established only in 2012. Evidently JIP needs all of the dots to be joined up. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The audio should be the 2010 release of Beatles 1. I have both. The CDs came out in 2010. Then, the DVD/BluRay videos came out in 2015. The point of the videos is that they were the 2010 remasters with new videos added to them. 68.115.219.139 (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so the recording would have a Phonorecord copyright of 1969 (original) or 2010 (remaster), while the video would have its own copyright of 2015 (as a newly produced montage) while the components of the video (the individual bits that were used in the montage) would retain their original copyright. See derivative work for more. --Jayron 32 12:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]