Talk:The Great Movies

Copyright in lists
I have removed the list from this article. Unfortunately, we are not able to reproduce lists of "greats" int his way, as these are innately creative. See Non-free_content and Copyright in lists. If the list exists somewhere on Ebert's website, we can certainly link to it. I'm sorry, as I can see that it represented quite a lot of work, but these lists sell books and have commercial value for that reason. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that if The Great Movies were organized in a way, like alphabetically or in terms of when Ebert first wrote them (certainly both of those are doable) and not in terms of which books they are included in, then the list of Great Movies could be restored?Fireflyfanboy (talk)
 * No, the fact that they are "great" movies is his opinion; it's not a fact. Alphabetical or otherwise, it's his list. A list of "highest grossing" movies would be fact. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So there is no way the list can be restored? Even removing references to the books and just linking to the pages on his website? My issue is that MANY, in fact I would say the majority, of films that are in the "Great Movies," refer to their inclusion in Ebert's Great Movies in their "critical reception" pages. I understand the copyright issue, but there must be some sort of compromise that would allow inclusion for the films that comprise the "Great Movies" somehow?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the list again and revision-deleted it. You cannot put the list on Wikipedia. (As you are aware, the matter was discussed at Media_copyright_questions.) If there's a page on his website that lists the films, you are welcome to link it. You cannot include the list here without permission from the copyright holder. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is that you seemingly deleted the list primarily because "these lists sell books and have commercial value for that reason." Ebert put every "Great Movies" essay on his website for free, they were only compiled into books after the fact. There currently is not a definitive listing of the "Great Movies" that is easily accessible on any website, including Ebert's, and as I mentioned before the Great Movies is named on practically every article for every film he mentioned, so I believe that the list of "Great Movies," in one form or another, is important. My question is that when the original author definitively puts something out there online for free, as Ebert did with these "Great Movies" essays, does the "commercial value" diminish to the point that these concerns about copyright are not as well-founded? It seems like, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding the rules, but one can simply link to the essays as they appear online, and that would not infringe on copyright because that information is seemingly accessible to the public in a much more obvious way than a book is. If you're going with the assumption that you need to by a book to see the list, I would understand this concern, but this information is already out there, albeit relatively unorganized, on his website. By my way of thinking, a list of "Great Movies" is not too different from an article like List of Nostalgia Critic episodes in that it is a listing of individual reviews from a prominent critic, albeit in a different medium. Moreover, this is not publishing anything that is copyrighted (i.e. specific quotes on the films), but rather merely a list of films he recognized. But, if getting permission from the original copyright holder is the ONLY way to get the list published, I'll try to contact Chaz Ebert today.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * U.S. copyright law holds that the creation of such a list is a creative act, and that such lists are therefore copyrightable. It is irrelevant if Ebert put the list, all or in part, on the Internet, because the Internet is simply another means of publishing, and the copyright remains in effect unless Ebert (or rather the owener of the copyright) releases it into the public domain or licenses it with a license compatible with ours.  Unless one of these two things happens, the list itself can't be put on Wikipedia.As I commented earlier, it's my belief that the fact that the list is copyrighted doesn't stop you from mentioning that any specific film is on the list in our article about that film, any more than copyright law prevents you from citing information taken from any other coopyrighted source, but the list itself, in total or in part, is copyrighted and both our own NFCC policy and U.S. "fair use" doctrine severly limits how much of it we can use -- our policy more so than the legal doctrine. BMK (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the website says quite clearly "Copyyright 2015 Ebert Digital LLC" BMK (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)