User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2011/May

Chinatown Theaters

Thank you very much for commenting on me adding the facts about past Chinatown theaters. Just to clarify, so the knickerbockervillage wouldn't be a good source to use since it is a blog? Can you clarify with me if I am to add info and have the references, which type of references are okay to use and not okay to use. So does this mean newspaper articles can't be used as well? I also added the info about the Sun Sing and Pagoda Theaters on East Broadway as well. Please let me know.

Thanks

nyc88 (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid we can't use blogs. But let's see what else we can come up with. There's quite a bit out there. Also, if you look at the Doyers Street article we have stuff on the old Chinatown theater that used to exist back in the early 1900s, including an image we can use. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Too many SPAs; take it elsewhere, please

Scotty, the B&W images that you've added to the "Chinatown, Manhattan" page are NOT public domain as stated in the upload attributes and a copyright violation. I had them removed at the request of the publisher and author. Here's a copy of the e-mail correspondence- Hello Doug, I have spoken with Daniel Ostrow, the author of Manhattan's Chinatown. He has indicated that the two images posted on Wikipedia ARE in fact his and since permission was not granted, the images DO need to be removed. The author noted that not only are the images from his book (page 107 top photo and page 119 top photo) but he also noted that he can tell the images are the exact images he owns because there are fold "crease" marks showing up on the images that mirror the exact location of where the creases are in the original photos that the author has in his possession. Please reply and let me know if and when you can have the images removed. Thanks, PJ Norlander Director of Marketing Arcadia Publishing ph: 843.853.2070 x160 and fax: 843.853.0044 Explore more than 7,000 titles at www.arcadiapublishing.com MagicianMerlin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC). Ownership of the photographs (or actually postcards, in this case) does not equal ownership of copyrights. Regardless of their existence in a copyrighted book, the images themselves are not copyrighted. Quite honestly, a publisher should know how copyright law works. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC) That's right. One of these photos, showing the Chinese Theater, was actually taken from the website of the Forward, not this publisher.ScottyBerg (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Also, the other image is of a postcard, which is a form of publishing. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Most likley they got permission from the owners of the poscards, Daniel Ostrow. Please keep in mind that the pre-1923 law only applies to material created and released to the public prior to that time. Photos taken before 1923 but released after that year are in fact copyrighted. The images in question are in fact from the collection of Daniel Ostrow, idenified by the creases placed there himself. I have since relayed the matter to Arcadia Publishers from whom you'll probably hear from soon here, as they've decided to take matters into their own hands including legal options. Believe me, publishers do know how the law works.MagicianMerlin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC). Those postcards were published prior to 1923, thereby satisfying the law that places them in the public domain. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC) That's correct. While the other photo was almost certainly published prior to 1923, you were correct to comment it out. The other user needs to familiarize himself with WP:LEGAL. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I'd hate to disappoint you, but the postcard image may also be a copyright violation. According to my understanding, any image(postcard or otherwise) published before 1923 w/out the proper @ U.S. copyright symbol is exempt from the the pre-1923 law. Many post cards of the day did not comply with these regulations. It is my understanding that this happens to be the case, which is why the author/owner is fuming. To make matters worse, there's no printed matter along with the image identifying it as an 1898 post card, only captions on a few websites claiming as such. If law were as simple as reading a brief documentation such as "WP.LEGAL", we wouldn't need attorneys to handle legal affairs.MagicianMerlin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC). No, that's not correct, and I've already explained to you that the owner of a postcard is not the owner of the copyright. The source, "Manhattan's Chinatown," which I presume to be a reliable source, states explicitly that this postcard is from 1898. Therefore it was published in that year, and is in the public domain. I've requested deletion of the other image you mention pending resolution of its publication date. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Mr. MagicianMerlin, you are partly right in saying that anything published without a copyright notice before 1923 is not affected by the pre-1923 law. However, your reasoning and your conclusion are completely wrong: it is not affected because it was in the public domain before that law took effect. Anything published in the USA before 1977 without a copyright notice has been in the public domain since the moment that it was published. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Nyttend, you are not totally correct. Any works created before 1977 with or without a copyright notice and not released until January 1, 1978, or thereafter, retains a copyright of 120 years after it's creation, or 95 years after the author's death(whichever occurs first). Hypothetically speaking, something created in 1898, but never saw the day of light until after 1977 could retain a copyright which would expire no sooner than December 31, 2018! I wouldn't rule out the Doyers Street postcard. Last year there was a small exhibition at a local Manhattan post office of similar copyrighted works created in the 1800s, but was only recently released by the author's descendants. I could've sworn that I saw that exact same card, or something similar to it. ScottyBerg- I'd suggest removing those images until you're *ABSOLUTELY* sure that they're in the public domain. As my grandfather used to say: "If you ain't 250% percent sure, then you ain't sure!"MBaxter1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC). If the postcard was printed (thereby publishing the image) in 1898, then it doesn't matter if that particular card itself remained hidden until the 1970s, as others were obviously printed at the same time. Without the fact of the postcard's printing, then the image's status would be in question. It is not. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Baxter, I think you may be right in asserting that merlin's conclusion aren't as wrong as first thought. My cousin Carl, who happens to be an entertainment lawyer, agrees after pouring through a stack of his law manuals until finally locating the 120 year rule in fine print. The problem I have with easy, do-it-yourself resources like the Cornell Univ. website is that they resemble the quick-guide chart one usually finds in the back of a reference book, not much better than Wikipedia's description. As Merlin was quick to point out, the law isn't as simple as these guys would like it to be. If it were, I don't think Carl would be driving a jaguar and living in a 4 bed, 4 bath house on Long Island. I'll also be checking in with the local bar associations to see what they have to say about this. As to the image's status, how do we know whether or not it's fake? We don't, therefore the image's status always must be somewhat in question. How can we easily assume the authenticity of something purportedly to be 113-years old, when we can't even spot New York Times sports columnists faking presnet-day Olympic reports from office cubicles in Manhattan?BobTheWrecker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC).

Climategate lede -- your reversion

Your comment on talk seems pretty short to justify reverting a revision I put quite a bit of effort into -- could you please extend your comments there?

Re Second Climatgate mention: please note that the NYT editorial mentioned opens with "Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us..." [1], so this use doesn't seem out of line. But an alternate wording is fine with me -- just not the one you put back!

Please also note that an editor there continues to insert global warming conspiracy opinion presented as fact, despite objections from at least 3 other editors. From WP:NPOV:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources...

I read through your user-page stuff on climate change, and it seems pretty sensible -- but your revert seems out of line to me. I hope you reconsider. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete, but I'm afraid that I disagree strongly with your version. I didn't go into a great deal of detail as I feel that it has all been said already. As previously stated by Viriditas (an editor I have not always agreed with in the past), the presence of "conspiracy theories" is already discussed in the article. Use of Climategate at this stage is unwarranted given the outcome of the investigations and all that has happened. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Scotty, thanks for your courteous reply. What I've seen for discussion so far has been much less convincing, to me anyway, and putting incendiary text such as "global warming conspiracy" into the lede requires impeccable sourcing, imo.

If you spot any actual RS news articles re the conspiracy theory business, could you please post them? I find Viriditas's "wall of text" posts almost unreadable. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I will, thanks. Perhaps the "conspiracy" language can be tweaked. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Gary Weiss

Thanks for backing me up on the abusive practices of our anonymous editor. Its a BLP, so he's completely off base. I'll try to keep an eye on it. --Christofurio (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Tnhank you

Hey.You"re welcome. Thanks for my apperication.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 18:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)