Talk:Dana Delany/Archive 1, Links To E2E Nude Vidcaps

Links to E2E nude vidcaps
Providing info specifically about nude scenes and providing links to nude vidcaps doesn't seem to serve much in terms of encyclopedic information. Especially since nudity was not really the point of Exit to Eden. It seems the intent here is more about objectifying Ms Delany, and personal prurient expression. For more specific details about her work the links to her website and IMDB are available. And, strictly speaking, those vidcaps are a copyright violation.Rphunt 17:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

They may or may not be a copyright violation on the part of whoever owns that website, I could not say. I don't see where pointing to another website makes wikipedia complicit in such copyright violation. Exit to Eden was all about sex, so it's highly relevant. But it's clear that I'm not going to be able to change your puritanical viewpoint (masquerading as feminism) on this subject. >:( Wahkeenah 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact, it is alleged at various places in wikipedia that individual frame screen captures are not a copyright violation. Wahkeenah 22:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

E2E was not "all about sex", it was about certain types of sexual exploration relating to emotional trust, and included a love story, and a detective story. So, again, the point was not nudity. Regardless, the images provide no informative value anyway. It wasn't Ms Delany's only nude appearance in film, and the movie wasn't controversial because of nudity, but the subject of BDSM. Maybe it would make more sense for you to edit the Exit to Eden article, and provide resources to help examine it further, but that doesn't appear to be your intention anyway, since those images are not referred to in terms of examining Ms Delany's work, but in highlighting your own prurient interests.

Regarding copyright violation, complicity was not mentioned by me. Additionally, if there is anything at Wikipedia that states that vidcaps are not infringement, it's incorrect. Rphunt 20:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Read this...

And maybe putting it on a segment about the film would make more sense. As for your attitude... Unless you're Dana Delany's mother (or even if - the last time I checked, she's over 21), then stop already with trying to impose your puritanical, prudish, patronizing, protectionistic (pretending to be feminist) personal viewpoint. I did not post the picture on the page, I merely posted the link and tried to indicate that it could be considered provocative. That's within the wiki guidelines. If you don't happen to like the pics, you don't have to look at them. Ya dig? >:( Wahkeenah 20:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

And, by the way, if you don't think she's hot, then you're either dead from the neck down, or gay, or both. >:( Wahkeenah 20:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Vidcaps or any other copyrighted materials can be used in certain limited editorial uses ("fair use" in the U.S.). The page you link to does not fall under that. And the quote as supplied is mistaken. But the point here is not about copyright. It's about using a tenuous relavance between an article's subject and gratuitous images, not to improve the article's encyclopedic value, but to forward a personal prurient interest.

A good example of how an image, that happens to have nudity, adds to the content is the Jennifer Aniston article. It's not just there for the high boner-factor.

"And, by the way, if you don't think she's hot, then you're either dead from the neck down, or gay, or both." You've just proven my main point. Thanks ;-) Rphunt 23:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

And you've proven mine. Wahkeenah 00:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

(After the quote above about fair use was changed) Yes, the new version of the quote is a more reasonable understanding of fair use. The original was too simplified and overly broad. But, the page you link to does not fall under that. And, the main point here is not about copyright. Rphunt 12:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)