Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dogpatch USA/archive1

Dogpatch USA
This article has been nominted before and gone through two peer reviews. All issues brought up in both have been adressed and fixed. The article has also gone through exstensive exspansion since then. --The_stuart 07:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support; I was really impressed by this. Everyking 09:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional support, since I to hate object to a very well written article. All the brochures have been tagged with a &#123;{nosource}} tag. Rework Inline citations and references as per Cite_Sources. Currently, some external links come under references and others are added as urls besides text, which is confusing and non-standardized. Its ok for an average article, but unacceptable for a FA. Try to use &#123;{inote}} for inline citations and citation templates for references. Pamri &bull; Talk 14:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The images Image:Dogpatch USA Ticket.jpg, Image:Dogpatch USA Brochure circa 70's.jpg, Image:Dogpatch USA Brochure circa 80's.jpg, Image:Dogpatch USA Brochure 91.jpg, Image:Dogpatch USA trout farm.JPG have no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 21:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that since these images are promotional material being used solely for educational purposes not comercial, that they fall under the status of fair use under United States copyright law. Otherwise I wouldn't have uploaded them in the first place. --The_stuart 21:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If they are being used under "fair use", then the rules at Fair use and Image description page need to be followed. In particular, the creator and current copyright holder need to be indicated, and a fair use rationale needs to be provided for each image. --Carnildo 22:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The copyright status of many of these images is going to be almost impossible to determine. Naturally, some of the artwork within the images would be from Al Capp, but the rest of it is from a defunct amusement park, and I would be amazed if the copyright on that portion of it is clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:29, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, we don't have to attribute the artwork to Al Capp because it was created while the characters were under linsense to the park. So should we attribute the copyright to which ever company likely owned the park during the year that the brochure was likely created?--The_stuart 13:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Support Well written, well laid out. --PopUpPirate 11:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent article. This is an example of an article that can only be found on Wikipedia. When this article first came up a while back, I reluctantly voted against it. I'm glad to see it's now been totally updated and revised and I'm happy to support it.--Alabamaboy 23:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support; Al Capp's artwork itself is almost certainly still under copyright, and can be used only insofar as it constitutes fair use. Brochures and the like put out by a now-defunct park, when they do not include Al Capp's artwork, are not under copyright. At any rate, I do support this piece; it's quite good. Hydriotaphia 21:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyright doesn't work that way. Just because the original owner of the copyright has gone bankrupt doesn't mean the copyrights have evaporated.  Copyrights are business assets just like land, machinery, and employees, and are transferred when a business is sold, or auctioned off if the business is broken up. --Carnildo 00:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are correct. However, fair use will cover reprinting decades old brochure from a defunct theme park. I would hate to remove these brochures from the article b/c they are of historic value. --Alabamaboy 23:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. The article stands on its own merits. Let's just dump all the graphics, because the issue of copyright is not likely to be resolved aside from the rationale that has been discussed here on this page. The article is rooted in the well-documented research of Russell Johnson, and expanded to include first-person accounts by the many people who were involved at some time in the park's history. It's a factual account, and a pleasure to read, without the disputed graphics. RogerK 03:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A featured article needs images. --69.152.205.238 15:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the anonymous user. I also don't see anything about the images that means they can't be used under fair use. While I do agree that some article use fair use far too much, in this case fair use is sufficient. We are talking about a theme park that has been defunct for more than a decade. As someone who works in advertising, I can testify that ancient brochures are worthless to any business, let alone a defunct one. To say that the brochures are "business assets" is silly. Use all of these images under fair use.--Alabamaboy 16:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)