Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp./archive1

Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

 * Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In 1948, Twentieth Century-Fox released The Iron Curtain, a spy thriller based on the story of Soviet defector Igor Gouzenko. The Soviet Union was, predictably, unhappy with the film, and sought its suppression. In "a hubristic willingness to engage the West in the West’s own terms" (Tomoff 2011, p. 135), the Soviets sued in the New York Supreme Court (New York's trial court). The suit was based on the film's use of the music of several Soviet composers, including the eponymous plaintiff Dmitry Shostakovich. The filmmakers used the works, which were in the public domain in the United States, without the composers' permission and they credited the composers in the opening credits. In court, the composers argued a novel theory in United States law: that their "moral rights" in authorship had been harmed because Fox had associated their art with a political message with which they disagreed. The court ruled in favor of Fox, holding that although moral rights exist, the court lacked a standard to adjudicate the claim and that the strong public policy favoring free use of the public domain outweighed authors' rights to control use of their works. The case has received limited discussion in the legal scholarship, with some commentators agreeing with the court, and others finding its decision lacking. After doing a bunch of research to bring this up from a strugling stub (thanks to for bringing this case to WP:LAW's attention) to GA in very quick time, with a thorough review by, I feel that this article comprehensively summarizes the history of this case and the academic response. I look forward to your comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk
, all done, an interesting read and well-written! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why the refs in the lead? I don't see a particular reason for them, since there's no quotes or controversial claims
 * The refs are for the proposition that the case is a landmark court decision, which I think needs to be substantiated. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - haven't read down yet, but are these criticism from our modern day? If so, this usage is appropriate, but if they're criticisms of the time then "was criticized" makes more sense
 * It's referring to a couple of legal comments contemporary to the case and recent scholarship. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - who's they? Many people/things were mentioned in the previous sentence
 * Clarified. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - cut has
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - cut have
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wl jurisprudence
 * Wl to caselaw. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wl "Reds" to something when it appears in the radio columnist quote
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - commenters have been divided on
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - cut has
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - ditto
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 33 doesn't point to a source
 * Fixed. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The last three headings at the end are rather odd to me. Usually, I see "Notes" used to describe footnote comments (e.g. in Debussy), and "References" used to describe the actual citations themselves (which is what you currently have labeled "Notes"). This is not against any policies, but just felt worth noting
 * Changed "Notes" to "References" and "References" to "Sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * : All comments addressed. Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - also, if you get time, would appreciate any comments here- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will try to take a look at your nom. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Done voorts (talk/contributions) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't use fixed px size
 * Done voorts (talk/contributions) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Igor_Gouzenko_1946.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify what you mean by a US tag? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Images hosted on Commons need to be free/PD in both their country of origin and also in the US. At the moment the image has a tag indicating it is free in Canada, but not one relevant to the US. (If you look at the fine print on that Canada tag there is a link to likely US tags, with explanations on when each is appropriate). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria: Removed the image because it's not clear to me if it is PD in the US (or even in Canada). voorts (talk/contributions) 15:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Conducting further investigation. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Further investigation completed and I've nominated the photograph for deletion at the Commons. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping you @Nikkimaria. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep - with that removed this should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from mujinga

 * A strange case I'd never heard of before, I wonder why the USSR thought it could humiliate a US film corporation in the US courts. I'll make some comments on prose (I Am Not A Lawyer as they say on reddit).
 * I think they thought that they could find a sympathetic judge who would be open-minded about moral rights. Indeed, even Fox's lawyers expressed some concerns that they might lose on the law, and they happened to end up in front of a judge willing to acknowledge that moral rights exist. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It does seem naive but maybe they thought it had propaganda value as well Mujinga (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest taking out the "main article" link and simply linking The Iron Curtain (film) on first mention in body, or if you really want to keep the main article link it needs to be italicised
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "rejecting each of the composers' theories" - theories seems odd here and in lead, suggest "arguments" or similar
 * Theory is shorthand for "theory of the case" and is a common term to describe a line of legal argumentation. If you feel strongly about it, I will change it. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Got you - then I'd suggest spelling that out and linking to Case theory (in law) for heathens like me Mujinga (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Added wikilinks in the lead and in the case history section. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "the court properly answered "the question of whether a composer's integrity can be impaired by a faithful rendition of his song in an objectionable context"." - who exactly is being quoted here?
 * The source cited in the footnote. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Where's the footnote? In any case if you are quoting someone directly I'd say it's best practice at FA level to say who exactly said these words, presumably legal commenters but which ones? Mujinga (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The footnote is at the end of the sentence. I understand your point, but I'm really only quoting it because it's a succinct phrasing of the legal issue raised in the case, and I think in-text attribution would make it clunky because it would require something like this: However, commenters have been divided on whether the court properly answered "the question of whether a composer's integrity can be impaired by a faithful rendition of his song in an objectionable context". I agree that attribution is important when a POV is being attributed to a person, but this isn't really a POV – it's purely descriptive. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue for me is the use of quotemarks and I don't think it matters if its a POV or not, if it's Zabatta who said that then I think you'd need either to attribute it as you did in the clunky version or rephrase in your own words. Otherwise it's not clear to me whether you are reporting the view of the court or one side or Zabatta. Mujinga (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mujinga: Removed the cite entirely and rephrased. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "allegedly as nominal plaintiffs standing in for the Soviet government" - this is quite a big claim for the lead, suggest saying in whose view
 * Clarified. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the case is described twice in the lead as a "landmark" but not explicitly so in the body? Mujinga (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Added to legacy section. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "the Shostakovich case as a landmark case" now you have 2xcase Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed the first "case" to decision. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments addressed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Voorts nearly there, a few nitpicky responses Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mujinga: I've responded. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * nice one - just the Zabatta query now Mujinga (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, switching to support. Will be cool to have a law-related article on the front page! Mujinga (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.


 * "before Justice Edward R. Koch of the Supreme Court (the state's trial court)"> It would be cleaer to give the court's full name.
 * I think that would make the sentence a little redundant because it would require adding "New York State" immediately before Supreme Court, and the sentence already states that the court is "in New York County". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As it stands, most readers are liable to assume that you mean the US Supreme Court. Even subsequently reading "in New York County" is not likely to shift this perception in a large proportion of non-US readers. Plus you currently have the flow-breaking parenthetical clause. Maybe 'before Justice Edward R. Koch of the New York Supreme Court in New York County', followed by either a separate sentence or a footnote explaining that in New York State the supreme court is the state's trial court?
 * How about this:
 * That works for me.


 * "Justice Koch also watched The Iron Curtain with counsel present" Koch needs formally introducing.
 * I couldn't find anything written about him. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, you introduce him in the previous sentence. I am not sure how I missed that.


 * "enjoin deformation of their works" is a technical phrase. Is it possible to word this so as to be more readily comprehensible?
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "for which the public expects that their authors will be paid and consent to their use". This is not very clear. Maybe something like 'for which the public expects that their authors have consented to their use, probably in exchange for being paid'?
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel that the block quote in "Decision" does not comply with MOS:QUOTE. (Eg "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text".)
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "prohibiting distribution of the film". Adding 'in France' may help a reader.
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Was there any attempt to appeal the New York decision?
 * The New York Official Reports do not show a motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be worth stating this in the article. Your call.
 * Done.

A nice article. I do worry that parts are written in specialist legal jargon, rather than the more accessible style appropriate to a general encyclopedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gog the Mild: Thank you for the feedback. I have one reply above. As for anything you think is too jargony, please let me know and I'm happy to work on it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Responded above. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Phrases which I think are a bit technical for a general audience, and so could do with either explaining in line or rephrasing, include Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * bring suit
 * At argument


 * @Gog the Mild: Clarified and made the above change as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild: Just wanted to check in and see if there's anything else you'd like me to address. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's good proactivity - chasing reviewers for further comments - but I have none and have already indicated my support for the article being promoted to FA. I look forward to donning my TFA coordinator hat and discussing when it might appear on the main page with you. How would some time in February suit? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If June 7 (the date of the decision) isn't taken, I think that might be fitting. (I kind of wish I had held off for October 1, but I don't think I could've waited a full year.) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891
Will have a read through in the moments to come. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Eddie891, I just wanted to see if you'll still be taking a look at the article. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes... Will hopefully get on it tomorrow. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably not today. If not, I promise promise promise that by the end of Friday will have commented. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Make that saturday.

An interesting article. That's a first round of comments above. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "first Cold War production of the United States film industry" What is meant by "first Cold War"? The first production during, or about, the cold war? I think this sentence could be taken either way
 * The source cited, Baldwin, describes it as "Hollywood's first Cold War effort". Other sources seem to describe it as the first true Cold War propaganda film out of Hollywood.
 * "from Khachaturian's Gayane" might be worth defining this as a ballet
 * Done.
 * "placing one of the composers' records on a phonograph" which composer?
 * Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5. Added that and a cite.
 * was the whole soundtrack based on these composer's works?
 * Yes (and I've clarified that).
 * "Upon the film's release, pro-Soviet organizations organized protests, accusing the film of being pro-war" how so? On another note, this really relevant to this article?
 * I think it's relevant as background because the scholarship cited in the article describes the lawsuit within that context, as part of a multi-pronged strategy to contest the film.
 * " in a letter to the editors of Izvestia, the composers wrote that the filmmakers, whom they called "American reactionaries", had stolen their music" are we sure that the composers themselves actually wrote the letter, as opposed to had their names signed on it?
 * The secondary sources cited describe it as being sent by the composers.
 * "Leeds asked Black to send a telegram from the composers formalizing their objections;" I think it's kinda odd phrasing to write about leeds the company talking to Black the person. do you have a name for the person calling the shots from Leeds?
 * I do not.
 * "During the month of April, Black and Fox also consulted attorneys; Black's lawyer advised her that Fox could likely use the music, notwithstanding whether they obtained a license, while Fox's counsel determined that although the law supported their position, there was a limited chance that they would not prevail in court." Is there any reason this is better as one whole sentence rather than being broken up? The longer a sentence is the more readers will struggle with comprehension
 * Fixed.
 * How did all these organizations know the composers' work would be used in the film before it was released?
 * That's not clear to me from the secondary literature. It seems like Helen Black was the first to find out, and my educated guess would be that she likely had sources in Hollywood and music licensing.
 * " Black was unable to obtain a telegram from Soviet officials," this has already been established with " but did not receive a response". Suggest removing.
 * Done
 * "Leeds declined to issue the license," Do we know why?
 * That's not clear from the secondary sources, but my educated guess would be that they didn't want to get involved in what could potentially become an international incident. Amending my answer. Per Tomoff 2015 (pp. 26–27), Leeds wanted $10K for a license, Fox countered with $3K, and Fox later reported that it had agreed to $10K, but both Leeds and Black denied that claim. I don' tthink it's worth going into that back and forth in the background section.
 * "Fox proceeded with publishing the film" Publishing feels like an odd word to use here
 * Changed to distributing.
 * "In May 1948, " before or after the film first premiered?
 * I haven't seen a specific date for the filing of the lawsuit. It was before.
 * There are two instances where two paragraphs begin with the same introductory phrase in a row. Can we vary it at all?
 * Yes we can.
 * ""a hubristic willingness to engage the West in the West’s own terms" what does this mean? What is the significance? I don't think it's great to just drop a quote that is somethat complex with no explanation
 * Clarified.
 * "They also did not argue that the filmmakers had improperly modified the compositions." Would it have mattered if they had?
 * Yes, it would have been a different claim.
 * Yes, but there are a lot of things they didn't argue. Why is this particularly relevant? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's relevant in distinguishing it from other cases, but perhaps not for a Wikipedia article. Removed. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * why is just distortion in quotes here: "public "distortion" of the composers' belief" but not in other places?
 * Removed the quote.
 * Who wrote the Harvard Law Review article? Are they notable/relevant?
 * Harvard Law Review case notes are published anonymously by the editors of the Law Review. Sometimes, the author is later revealed, for example, Obama's case note.  Apologies, I was confused by this inquiry as there is a note cited in the article. The Harvard Law Review article was written by one "Martin A. Roeder". The only thing I've found on him personally is a 1987 letter to the editor that he wrote to the New York Times mentioning his article.
 * I've also found his paid obituary in the New York Times. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "and contended that the composers' moral rights were harmed by the political use of their music" The 1940 harvard Law Review article contended this?
 * Clarified.
 * The aftermath section feels unduly short. What was the tone of coverage? When did the French court decision happen? How did fox and the composers respond to the decision?
 * I'll work on adding some more newspaper sources in here.
 * "that typifies the rejection of moral rights claims by United States courts." So has this happened a lot subsequently?
 * It's happened in several cases since then; I'm not an expert on it, but the secondary sources cited in the article describe other cases, and the sources cited at the end of that sentence describe it as consistent with further moral rights jurisprudence in the U.S.
 * How did you decide what scholarly sources you will describe in what way? You inconsistently include the year of source and the profession of the authors.
 * I included the year when it was around the same time of the decision, because it's relevant how commentators responded to the decision at the time of the decision, as opposed to how later commenters have looked at it with the knowledge of further legal developments. Regarding the issue of profession, some of them are law student notes in law reviews (which I would argue are as reliable as law review articles written by professors because they undergo the same review process), and for some of them, I don't know the profession.
 * So why does Stephenson get a year (1953), but Strauss (1955) does not? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now it does. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Eddie891. Replied to the above. I'll see what I can find for the the Aftermath section. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've clarified widespread press coverage to be that it was widely reported by publications, which aligns more closely with Platte (2022). From my own search, it appears that UPI and the AP both covered the case, and that was widely syndicated in the US. I've also added more information about the French case. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there any indication of why France was the only other place the Soviet Union sued to halt distribution? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The case was brought in France based on a proposal of the head of VOKS and the Soviet Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eddie891: I think I've addressed your second round of comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, Support. It may be beneficial to get someone with specialized legal knowledge to comment, if anyone can be tracked down. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll post on WT:LAW. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I pinged Elcobbola, who is a specialist in this area. (Because this is the kind of specialist FAC I wouldn't support until a specialist had looked in, and I know Elcobbola well, but don't yet know voorts :) :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I will pick my nits on talk here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * My nits have been picked satisfactorily. If Elcobbola shows up to give his seal of approval, this will be a rock solid FAC, which I would support, so it may be worth waiting one or two days for him.  Nice work !!! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review
Spot-check upon request. Source formatting looks pretty consistent for me and all the sources I see seem appropriate for the topic and for a FA. I don't think The New York Times should have an ISSN, though. It seems like most inconsistencies in source formatting can be "credited" to the different information available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ISSN removed. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I just wanted to confirm that was your only issue and this otherwise passes. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * With the caveat of a lack of a spot-check, this seems like a pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a few drive-by comments. Interesting article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Drive-by comments from Kavyansh
 * Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. is a landmark 1948 New York Supreme Court decision that is was the — is or was?
 * Not really something of concern, but is there a reason we say "Hollywood" in the lead, but "United States film industry" in prose?
 * as "a hubristic willingness to engage the West in the West’s own terms" by asserting — MOS:CQ
 * in New York County's trial court, the Supreme Court — By no means am I an "expert" on prose, but would an work better than a comma here? I had to view one of the previous version of the article to understand that "the Supreme Court" is "the state's trial court". Feel free to ignore this point if it is just me.
 * The law professor Mira T. Sundara Rajan wrote in 2011 — We have already introduced this person, do we need to repeat their complete name again?


 * Thanks! Fixed everything. No reason for the difference between Hollywood and US film industry, other than to change things up. The trial court / Supreme Court language has been worked on in a couple of reviews here so I'd prefer not to change it again. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Kavyansh.Singh. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me. My concerns have been resolved. There we just some drive-by comments, and I don't intend to support or oppose on basis of them. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it. I just wanted to see if you had anything else. Thank you for taking the time to review. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)