User talk:Brooke McEldowney

Conflict of interest
Hello Brooke McEldowney. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Pibgorn (webcomic), you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hi,

I noticed you've had some complaints about some Wikipedia content associated with your comic work. I would strongly suggest that you take the time to contact the Volunteer Response Team with your concerns--they can help make sure any article content you take issue with is dealt with appropriately and with the backing of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Images on Wikipedia are not my forte, but some usage of your comic panels may fall under fair use ruled; more information can be found at Non-free content. Of course, if you're willing to supply any images with permission, I know that would be greatly appreciated.

We have some guidelines regarding editing with a conflict of interest--it's okay to do, but since it sometimes leads to disputes over content, check out the informational notice left in the section above so you can be aware of the possible issues.

Other information that you may find useful is available at FAQ/Article subjects. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Further to suggestions...
One image of Pibgorn, as an illustration, is, I believe, consistent with copyright law in the U.S. Two are not. The inclusion of my drawings in Pibgorn, furthermore, included unattributed interpretations as to the purpose of the drawings. The interpretations were wrong, and betrayed, at best, a careless use of words, at worst, the hobbyhorse of the anonymous writer. In the one remaining image from Pibgorn, the term "sexualization of music" was included as the purpose of my dialogue. That also was not only wild surmise, but was stated without any effort to contact me to check out the assumption. The text in the cartoon is a joke, nothing more, and certainly has nothing to do with the "sexualization of music," whatever that is. The image from Pibgorn is expositional, leading into the story entitled, "Mozart and The Demon Lover." Any further interpretation does not represent my work, and should not be printed as fact, inasmuch as the only fact it represents is the bent of the person who wrote the caption. Keep in mind, Pibgorn and 9 Chickweed Lane are both copyright comic strips, licensed, and exclusive. To obviate my purpose in the publication of my strip and append opinion dressed as fact, speaks without authority as to the drawing, and is grossly misleading. I take these matters most seriously.--Brooke McEldowney (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum
For anybody's clarification, my weensy argument in the posted example of Pibgorn, having to do with selling Mozart, derived from an assertion made back in the 1980s by Harold Schonberg in the New York Times - that performers should not just go out and play Mozart, they should go out and "sell" him (this is all recall, so I apologize if I don't have the words exactly right). I respected the critic, however I intensely disagreed with the view pertaining to musical performance. In the beginning of the story of "Mozart and The Demon Lover," I drew on the gist of Schonberg's argument by showing Drusilla selling Mozart in the only way she knows. Hers was possibly effective sales technique, but still I don't think Mozart needed the help.--Brooke McEldowney (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr McEldowney - thanks for the clarification! I admit I hadn't heard of Schonberg, so I missed the reference. Sorry for getting that wrong! Was the caption (for the other image) "Pibgorn being tortured and violated" accurate, though? If not, how should it have been described? Thanks in advance! 71.254.71.134 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Brooke, could you please do me a huge favor and clarify your response a little more for me? I'm afraid I don't quite understand the original infraction here. Fair use clearly states the use of seperate images for reference material on a free forum, as stated:

“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

But the Fair Use Act aside, by your own accusation, wouldn't you be under fire on as well? You've published other peoples' likeness without explicit permission, from Mozart's sheet music to Hilary Hahn's name and face. As for the "inappropriate" Pibgorn caption, isn't that precisely what Drusilla was doing? You even mention pelvic thrusts and grinding, as well as other highly sexual innuendo in those panels. My fear is that you have a tendency to behave brusquely towards anyone who adds any edits to Wikipedia different from your own, even when they are correct about something pertaining to your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothycat (talk • contribs) 07:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not Mr McEldowney, but you should know that Mozart's sheet music is most definitely public domain, and Hilary Hahn's likeness is neither trademarked nor copyrighted. DS (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dragonfly! You are correct, and that's my point.  I was curious to know more of the backstory leading up to the whole thing since it seemed a bit hypocritical to question the legality of Wikipedia's use of 9CWL/Pibgorn images in the same context, as is protected by Section 107 of the Fair Use Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.87.69.230 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)