Talk:Daniella Cicarelli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ban[edit]

The court reversed the ban. The article needs to be updated.

I updated it. Thanks.
-- DieselChrist 12:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela or Daniella[edit]

The name is Daniela or Daniella? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.3.222.66 (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Marriage?[edit]

Was she ever legally married to Ronaldo? Newspapers have reported that the marriage couldn't take place on Feb. 14 because either Ronaldo needed to wait a year after his divorce or the couple needed to have announced their wedding 3 months in advance in France. The wedding was turned into an engagement party according to some reports. -Lychnismint 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is said that brazil fell out from the world cup mainly because she fucked with Ronaldo about three times every night, so he was way too tired to play effectively. A tabloid report said she was screaming so ecstatically all night that no people could sleep in the hotel. If this is true it would be significant, since brazil's recent big failure in soccer world cup is unprecedented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Link to controversial sex video[edit]

Links to the controversial sex video in question should not be added to the article, since the copyright status of such material is uncertain. Also Wikipedia is not a collection of links. --Oden 16:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the link is relevant. But Wikipedia is going to bow to Brazilian censorship?--Ssj4android 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not while it blatantly violates copyright. --Yamla 05:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would the person who filmed it own the copyright?

How would that be possible?. He/she filmed it without their permission. So no the person who filmed does not own the copyright. --SkyWalker 09:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I filmed a flower but did not ask it for permission am I a criminal? Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 14:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup that is a criminal act, Because you did not take permission from the flower :D. --SkyWalker 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linking ISN'T copyvio anyway even if the material is copyvio itself! How should it be? Linking is just pointing an arrow saying 'you can find it here' and this isn't copyvio. And after all this video isn't copyvio. Maybe it's illegal in another way (indeed I suppose it isn't, at least for the spanish gov. folks), but not copyvio. Check out the definition of copyright. --Henriquevicente 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a violation of Wikipedia policy. WP:SPAM, WP:EL, etc. And your addition of a link that you know may cause Wikipedia to be banned in Brazil is not appreciated. --Yamla 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've read both the WP:SPAM and the WP:EL and I haven't see where it is a violation. Could you list some of the violation for us, please? About the Spamming I better say I can't agree once the link is relevant and appropriate in a way that it's anything related to the article. What about the interview's link (not displaying the other video)? Could you comment please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henriquevicente (talk • contribs) 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
First, you added a link to a blog. That is not appropriate (WP:EL, links to normally avoid, #11). Also, see WP:COPY#Linking_to_copyrighted_works which prohibits us linking to the video unless that video is distributed by the copyright holder (not the case here). --Yamla 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Links to blogs are to be avoided, ok. So I could just replace to the link of the video directly itself. And doesn't it fall under fair-use once it is relevant as a media proof of what made the YouTube be blocked by some backbones? Anyway, the secretary for health of a state has made a great parody of this video and published it on the Internet, so I'll put it on the page. Do you agree? By now I've put and my defense that the displaying of this parody is legal is that the it was made by a governmental agency and after all it falls on the fair-use as it is a parody. --Henriquevicente 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The video is restricted by two independent laws: copyright and personality rights. Miguel Temprano owns the copyright on the video (if he didn't sell the exclusive rights to the TV station), Renato Malzoni and Daniela Cicarelli both own personality rights on the video. Prominent people enjoy only limited personality rights especially when in public (freedom of press), and this sometimes can go as far as applying even if the person in question is on vacation. So in countries with the most liberal jurisdiction in such cases, it might be an interesting question whether photos/videos of public sex is still not restricted by exclusive personality rights of the protagonists. The Brazilian Court seems to have decided that this is at least not the case in Brazil. However, that issue is entirely unrelated to copyright. The distribution of the video on YouTube and all other sites was without doubt a copyright violation, since it was taken without permission from a TV show (as so many videos on YouTube). So no, we cannot link to the video, regardless of personality rights status. And in the countries where the video is additionally protected by personality rights, you would break the exclusive rights of three instead of only one persons, and would risk being sued three times, paying damages three times instead of only once. I hope I made clear the nature of independent and overlapping restrictions by several laws. --Rtc 13:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website for Spike TV has a webpage with the video. That's a national TV channel, which is a reliable source. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam? No, it's not spam, as there is nothing for sale! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored for minors, not even for profanity or pornography.[edit]

{{Not censored}} Grundle2600 (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just curious[edit]

But this couple is having sex on a public beach.. yet it is the photographer and YouTube who is to blame? I don't get it.

If you wanna have privacy you better don't fornicate at beach like a dog!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.24.179.28 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 January 2007

My edit on 27 October 2009[edit]

08:26, 27 October 2009 Richard L. Peterson (talk | contribs) (7,179 bytes) (Tagged as pov since almost entire article devoted to scandals rather than model work, achievements. Sex video link removed--BLP policy) The removal of the video link is appropriate under Wikipedia BLP policy. Although I believe most of the rest of the article should be removed immediately according to BLP because it is written in a negative manner and sources are weak or not in English, I have compromised(since my previous edit was reverted)& only tagged it as pov. (In my view, just because a biographical article is not libellous does not meanit passes BLP. All biographical articles should be written in a neutral manner with good sourcing, or face removal. We want to hold our encyclopedia to the highest standards.) Rich (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an action that the subject chose to do, on a public beach, during broad daylight, in front of an audience. How does that have anything to do with "privacy"? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states, "This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions." If she had been raped, or if someone had snuck a video camera into her private home, then this policy would apply. But that is not the case here. This is an action that the subject chose to do, of her own free will, on a public beach, during broad daylight, in front of an audience. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject filed a lawsuit over this, and the lawsuit was rejected. How is that not relevant to the subject? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grundle, thanks for pointing out that it's Brazil not Spain! I reverted to version befor your latest edits but changed it to brazil. Below is the question and some of the issues i posted at th help desk. the post may be relevant to your ponderings. Good luck.71.198.176.141 (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I removed a link to a paparazzi sex video and most of the article--it seemed pov and cruel to Cicarelli. Was I right to do this under BLP? Someone has reverted my edit. ThanksRich (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP mostly deals with material that is poorly sourced (i.e. libellous), and that doesn't seem to apply here. The material was well-sourced. As the reverting user implied, you should have at least started a discussion on the talk page before removing the material; perhaps some of it could have been saved. Xenon54 / talk / 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC) ok, thanksRich (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I've thought about it a bit more, and I think that if what you say is correct wikipedia policy then it's pretty messed up. Linking the video is rather discourteous whether or not i'ts legal and well-sourced. Yes, she is a famous person, but "he" may not be, although that's hardly one of my main points. She and he didn't consent to the video, and if I remember and understood correctly, in the United States, the philosophy behind the "public person" privacy rulings by the Supreme Court was overriding and obvious public interest, and surely this video has no ovverriding and obvious public interest. It is true that this was filmed outside of the USA, but do we want to support a kind of virtual sexual tourism? Surely an unauthorized sex video taken within the usa wouldn't pass muster on wikipedia, and I think we should have a uniform policy.Rich (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.176.141 (talk) 71.198.176.141 (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "She and he didn't consent to the video." However, they did consent to engage in public sex on a public beach in broad daylight. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion[edit]

Most people her age have sex. The fact that she was photographed doing so is not notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's not what's notable. What is notable is that she chose to have public sex on a public beach, in broad daylight, and then filed a lawsuit over the video, which she claimed was an invasion of "privacy." The lawsuit is notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support deletion, this is supposed to be a biography of a notable living person, if the lawsuit is notable create an article about it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lawsuit it notable enough to be mentioned in this article, but not notable enough to have its own article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence that she is sufficiently notable for an article. There is only one source in the article that appears to not be primarily about the lawsuits or sex scandal. And the only other source simply mentions she broke up with Ronaldo, it doesn't cover her at all. This all seems suggest she is not notable but the lawsuit/scandal could be (whether for its own article or the Youtube article or something else). The article also doesn't mention anything which suggests she's definitely notable Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too support deletion as she is mostly notable in Brazil but nowhere else (besides her taped "sex performance" which doesn't warrant an enziclopediac entry).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source says she engaged in a "public sex performance" at a "public beach."[edit]

The source says she engaged in a "public sex performance" at a "public beach." This is highly notable, because in her lawsuit, she claimed a violation of privacy. There is no privacy on a public beach. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The source?" - There are many sources. We don't need to use the specific wording of the source that you want to use. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. --Onorem♠Dil 01:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{hint} This source is even wrong in regards of the location of where the video was taken.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caution[edit]

Daniela PR is engaged in deletionism and wiped huge portion of information in this article. --201.78.16.112 (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was me, do not re add it, it is in violation of our WP:BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this on English Wikipedia?[edit]

So an MTV-BRAZIL part-time VJ had sex in the ocean with her boyfriend 4-5 years ago. Maybe its news for Brazil Wikipedia, but seriously, why does she have an article? She a cute woman. She no longer works for MTV. She is no longer with that boyfriend (whoever he was, maybe some famous Brazilian reporter of local news). Porno video sites are full of videos of sex tapes. Why don't we add Chu Shi Xyan, the best plumber in north eastern Mongolia shagging Lin Fu, the part time VJ of Mongolian Music TV? I say, we kill this article. It sounds like this woman's PR agent created this page. Meishern (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Daniella Cicarelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable[edit]

This seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E and doesn't deserve an entry.--WatchingContent (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniella Cicarelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed[edit]

This article is badly in need of an update. The last information here is from 2008, nearly 9 years ago, and says 'YouTube appealed and now wait for the judgment by the Federal Supreme Court'. Surely by now the Supreme Court must have judged this case one way or another. (I'm not convinced we need this article at all, but if we do it must at least be kept up to date.) Robofish (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniella_Cicarelli&oldid=1217276432"