Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Villain caricature

Villain caricature
Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2010 at 12:06:22 (UTC)
 * Reason:I think the image actually fits all criterias, perhaps except the caption part. The image was FP before, but was delisted during time of crisis.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Villain
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture
 * Creator:User:J.J.


 * Support as nominator --→ Aza Toth 12:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the image is all that stereotypical, why don't we have a depiction similar from film/literature or something? This just reeks of original research to me, and is alarmingly clip-arty. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not convinced of its EV. On what basis can this be called a stereotypical caricature of a villain? Not all villains look like this or wear similar clothes. To call it a stereotypical caricature borders WP:OR. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Was delisted in 2007: Featured picture candidates/delist/Cartoon Villain Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For the reasons given during its delist. And stay out... --jjron (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I suppose my vote might well prove to be an “outlier” vote since this image was delisted by a clear consensus, but I *get* what the nominator is trying to do here. This is a very whimsical image that would especially appeal to the over-50 crowd. The quality of the drawing, with that shadow around the eye, is very good. It’s interesting that I recently used the term “Snidely Whiplash” in an e-mail as a metaphor for psychopathic villainy. I think the image of this character certainly has EV value for the subject of “villain.” Not every aspect of the treatment of this topic (villains) must be deadly serious, as if the rod up Wikipedia’s butt has to have a rod up it’s butt. (I mean that in a nice way). Greg L (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. EV concerns, and "clip art"-type artistic complexity is a detracting factor.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 21:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Redtigerxyz... Gazhiley (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Moderate support Gotta love an SVG that keeps good quality at all sizes. Not a very complex "masterpiece" of art, but I think it does meet the quality standards. If the decision is that it's not breathtakingly or astoundingly interesting or original enough I guess I can live with that. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm still not seeing this at all; this really isn't FP material for a great number of reasons. I'm just not seeing the EV. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Rip-off of Snidely Whiplash. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was Snidely Whiplash and was going to suggest adding it to the article. Antagonist could use an image though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah; for the over-50 crowd, the fact that this is Snidely Whiplash is *a given*. For younger readers, it should apparently be explicitly stated. Regardless, there seems to be plenty of other reasons this one is going down in flames. Greg L (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As one of those younger readers, I didn't get it. My mind went to The Childcatcher and Dick Dastardly (that said, they're hardly current characters...). If this is a direct rip-off from Snidely, then there are copyright issues- we do not allow fan art. If this isn't, then what we have is essentially original research. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Still more reasons for this nomination to go rather poorly. I struck my “support” vote. I didn’t realize that this wasn’t supposed to explicitly be Snidely Whiplash and thought the caption here was just poor. Looking now at the file description, it is being passed off as “A stereotypical caricature of a villain.” No kidding; total rip off. It needs a fair-use rationale etc. etc. or I doubt it can pass a rigorous wikipedian white-glove treatment and needs to be deleted. Greg L (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Now I see what others were saying, above. This isn’t a ‘stereotypical villain’; it is Snidely Whiplash being passed off as such. The file page needs a proper description and a proper fair-use rationale. And that seems to be only possible if the image is properly being used in just one article (Snidely Whiplash). This is like a Rolex at a pawn shop: burns my fingers, man. Greg L (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take this as a compliment Greg, but your comments do make me giggle. You have such a lovely style of writing. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. Thanks. I’m here to help; particularly on a Friday. Greg L (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't think it's Snidely Whiplash: I think it's more that, like Snidely, it copies the very early film clichés. If you're not familiar with those clichés, it will seem very similar. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the official Mr. Whiplash. The nose in this one has a loop-back and his top hat is curved here and there is a cleft in the chin. Other than that, two depictions have an uncanny and remarkable similarity. Interestingly, in this depiction of Snidely Whiplash, the nose has the loop-back curve and the hat is curved. This character—a product of Hanna-Barbera—was also used in another character of theirs called Dick Dastardly. The only question now is whether a depiction of what is clearly Snidely Whiplash / Dick Dastardly (what I will refer to as Snidely Whiplash) now represents generic villainy in the public’s consciousness. According to PubLaw, here:




 * The article also speaks to how the courts have adopted the “the total ‘look and feel’ approach;” in this case, it doesn’t seem to be a close call. The above-quoted theory of “took on a life of its own” is the principle of copyright law *appears* to underlie taking this image and declaring it to be a “stereotypical caricature of a villain.” I’m not in the least bit convinced User:J.J., who created this image, fully appreciates the extent to which Snidely Whiplash’s image had “taken on a life of its own” and how the character was “no longer existing in the original context in which it first appeared” in American pop-culture before making his image as he did.


 * Also take a look at a Google search of "Snidely Whiplash". Either J.J. *reproduced* a very similar image, or his image—which through Wikipedia’s actions has now been put out into the public domain ostensibly as a ‘generic villain’—has now spread into pop culture where it is now discoverable for what it clearly is: Snidely Whiplash . It seems to be a case where WP:OR is the nicest way to characterize what may simply be “copyright violation,” or as Kaldari wrote above, “rip-off.” It could well be the case here that Wikipedia is in a position where it is in the position of changing the way the world works rather than simply reflecting the way the world really works. Regardless, Wikipedia can not be a party to copyright violations and given the uncanny resemblance (total look & feel), I don’t understand why this hasn’t been addressed before now.


 * I’ve alerted J.J. on his talk page and invited him to weigh in. Perhaps he can replace some conjecture here with facts. One thing we absolutely can not do is find ourselves debating primary legal opinions as to whether Snidely Whiplash’s image now represents generic villainy in the pop culture; if that is the case, we must find a reliable source that states as much. As for the underlying premiss here (that this image is Snidely Whiplash), we can use WP:COMMONSENSE on that bit—it’s not even a close call, IMO, for those of us who grew up on these cartoons, this depiction is clearly the work product of Hanna-Barbera. Greg L (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)  P.S. BTW, start scrolling down from here on J.J.’s talk page. It appears that this editor is prolific in placing “unsourced images” on Wikipedia and having them deleted over copyright concerns. The one here seems to be just another one to add to the list. I note also that J.J. doesn’t seem to respond to all those posts on his talk page—at least not on his talk page he doesn’t respond much. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. I grew up on cartoons. It's obvious that there are substantial similarities between this drawing and the design of Snidely Whiplash.  You claim that this is a drawing of Snidely Whiplash (and that this is a matter of common sense and "not even a close call"), and I strongly disagree.  Clearly, there are significant differences between the two (particularly in the skin tone, chin, nose, ears and hair).  It's reasonable to argue that the degree of similarity is strong enough to constitute copyright infringement (an assertion with which I do not agree), but that's very different from the statement that "this image is Snidely Whiplash."
 * 2. You're mistaken in your belief that the Snidely Whiplash character is a "product of Hanna-Barbera"; he appeared in cartoons from Jay Ward Productions. You're correct, however, that Dick Dastardly is a Hanna-Barbera character, so by your logic, Hanna-Barbera committed copyright infringement too.
 * 3. Are you aware that the concept of a top hat-wearing, mustache-twirling villain long predates the cartoons in question? Please compare this image (from the 1913 silent film Barney Oldfield's Race for a Life) and this image (from the 1914 silent film serial The Perils of Pauline) to this image of Snidely Whiplash before arguing that the latter was the original depiction of such a character (as opposed to a familiar stereotype independently utilized by Jay Ward Productions, Hanna-Barbera and J.J. when a clichéd villain was called for).  —David Levy 06:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't need to argue about this. The Foundation has, through its publications, admitted that this is Snidely Whiplash (yes, the Foundation has ultimate editorial responsibility, which is why WP:OFFICE actions exist) . This and the fact that the revision history of the Snidely Whiplash article is just a series of insertions and removals of the image, also explain the Google search results.  Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If The Foundation has admitted it is Snidely Whiplash, that tells me that this image has an improper file name and improper file description and a lack of copyright attribution and a lack of a fair-use rationale. Greg L (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since when does User:Solipsist = "the Foundation"? —David Levy 16:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I already answered that. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can assign responsibility (and blame) to whomever you please, but the Foundation's failure to correct an erroneous claim not even brought to its attention (inaction) ≠ an endorsement of said claim (action). —David Levy 18:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, we don’t need to “argue.” But as this picture was nominated for FPC, potential copyright violation is a germane issue so this does need to be discussed and the proper action taken. This picture had no business ever being used to illustrate our Snidely Whiplash article. It is WP:OR to make something that is so strikingly close to the Snidely Whiplash character that it is passed off as such by Wikipedia and as a result gets used throughout the internet as such (and even used to illustrate the Snidely Whiplash article). The proper illustrations for Snidely Whiplash are those like what is there now: an actual vidgrab from the actual cartoon. Kaldari hit the nail right on the head when he opined simply “Rip-off of Snidely Whiplash.” Greg L (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. You're correct, of course, that attempts to use this image to illustrate our Snidely Whiplash article are entirely inappropriate. And yes, Solipsist should not have described the image as such.
 * 2. You state above that the image is "strikingly close to the Snidely Whiplash character." Do you care to address the numerous differences that I've noted?  (J.J.'s character doesn't even have green skin.)  And how are these characters (including Snidely Whiplash) not "strikingly close" to the silent film villains that I cited?  —David Levy 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In court cases like this, the complainant often use surveys of public opinion— (*show someone a picture*) “Who is this?”. It is WP:OR to make something that is so strikingly close to the Snidely Whiplash character that it was passed off as such by Wikipedia (and was even used at times to illustrate the Snidely Whiplash article). As a direct result of these actions, this image is now being used throughout the internet to depict Snidely Whiplash . All these other people on the Internet aren’t retarded; they know this caricature looks like Snidely Whiplash and they use Wikipedia’s image because it is a high-quality closeup without severe TV-resolution limitations (we even offer a 2000-pixel version of this image). That’s pretty much a “Well… DUH!” thing. The proper illustrations for our Snidely Whiplash article are those like the one there now: an actual vid-grab from the actual cartoon. Kaldari hit the nail right on the head when he opined simply “Rip-off of Snidely Whiplash.” He applied WP:COMMONSENSE (*ouch*). I’m still waiting for an argument that successfully explains away how this picture isn’t a copyright violation (rip off) without asking us—and everyone else on the internet now using this image as representing Snidely—to “pay no attention to that striking resemblance behind the curtain.” Greg L (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're repeating yourself, in large part via copy-and-paste (indiscriminately including statements with which I've expressed agreement), while ignoring my above responses. Until you're willing to engage in actual discussion (in which you directly address other people's arguments), this back-and-forth will fail to be constructive.  —David Levy 17:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did address your question (or tried to). So, to guide you along on this, I’ll point directly to your question: “Do you care to address the numerous differences that I've noted?” And my answer is “there is no need to quibble over such details—the proof is first and persistent impressions of the common person on the street.” Pointing to details like that are what the defendants’ lawyers always resort to in copyright lawsuits over just these sort of things. Trivial difference were used once in a Big Bird lawsuit. One side was saying “Look, our version of this big yellow thing with a long neck has 2D stripes on its legs whereas Big Bird has 3D magenta bands that protrude and ours has blue eyeshadow whereas Big Bird has  magenta  eye shaddow.” There were many differences in the details like this. But when one just looked at it, one thought “Big Bird.” And that’s what the defendants were trying to do and they just got caught trying to circumvent “overall look & feel” by purposely trying to engineer some differences. My point above is that pointing to silly little differences doesn’t matter on twit; in the end, all that matters is what the overall effect on first impressions before the lawyers go to work trying to show how the viewer is such a fool. Thus, the proof in the pudding is that this very image is now being used throughout the internet to depict Snidely Whiplash because that’s what it looks like to them. There’s the proof that this looks like Snidely Whiplash. Period. Full stop. So our arguing over what we think here is WP:OR. Neither you nor I can act like copyright attorneys; we must point the real world. The impressions of all these sources all over the Internet that have picked up on this image as representing Snidely Whiplash is A) real and B) is clearly justified; they aren’t out of their minds—nor was User:Solipsist when he had a hand in declaring here on Wikipedia that this is Snidely Whiplash. Neither were the editors on Snidely Whiplash when they alternately used this very image to illustrate that article. Nor was User:Kaldari, above, when he opined that it is a “Rip-off of Snidely Whiplash.” So methinks thee doth protest too much, Counsel, and are grasping at straws when you point to trivial details like how Snidely Whiplash is really green and this one is not. So, seeing that this is all the argument you’ve got, I’ll get onto the task of having this image deleted from Commons tomorrow. Greg L (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not quibbling. There are numerous non-trivial differences between this design and that of Snidley Whiplash.  Here's a chart:
 * {|class="wikitable"

!Traits ! Snidley Whiplash ! J.J.'s villain character
 * Skin color
 * green
 * gray
 * Nose
 * thin/pointed straight out
 * fat/pointed down
 * Chin
 * large/pointed down/smooth
 * relatively small/pointed straight out/cleft
 * Ears
 * small/non-detailed
 * large/detailed
 * Mustache
 * normal size
 * extremely large
 * Sideburns
 * yes
 * no
 * Clothing
 * cloak
 * suit and necktie
 * Behavior
 * antagonizes damsels/Mounties
 * unspecified
 * }
 * That last trait ("behavior") is important, as a character's use can constitute (or contribute to) copyright infringement, even when its design is largely dissimilar. (A notable example is the Munchkin video game, which was deemed an unlawful copy of Pac-Man despite the titular characters' non-resemblance to each other.)  If J.J.'s character were used in a specific context similar to that of Snidely Whiplash (beyond merely being labeled a "villain"), that would change matters, but this is not so.
 * You've repeatedly stressed that Wikipedia has inappropriately used the image (both as "picture of the day" and in the Snidely Whiplash article) to illustrate Snidely Whiplash. This is not disputed.  It has occurred repeatedly, and it's a significant problem with legal ramifications.  You also are correct that this likely led to the image's widespread use to depict Snidely Whiplash on various websites.
 * None of this, however, pertains to the image's intrinsic properties or its copyright holder's intent. That intent, in my view, was not to create a Snidely Whiplash lookalike (and purposely insert differences to hide this), but to create a villain exhibiting characteristics widely associated with stock villains of stage and screen (just as Snidely Whiplash's creator did).
 * And that's what we're left with. The extent of the similarity is that both characters are villainous, scowling men with top hats, dark hair and handlebar mustaches.  Apart from being drawn, J.J.'s character bears as much resemblance to this 1913 character and this 1914 character as he does to Snidely Whiplash.  And like Snidely Whiplash, those silent film characters actually fought heroes and tied women to train tracks.  (J.J.'s villain character, conversely, has no known behavioral traits beyond his pose.)
 * That both Snidely Whiplash and J.J.'s villain character are drawn is a major reason why the latter would be mistaken for the former. I'm aware of no similar cartoon character with wider recognition than Snidely Whiplash, so it's likely that any drawing of a villainous, scowling man with a top hat, dark hair and handlebar mustache would be mistaken by some for Snidely Whiplash (simply because no other cartoon character springs to mind).  This doesn't mean that any drawing of a villainous, scowling man with a top hat, dark hair and handlebar mustache constitutes copyright infringement.  This is a stereotypical depiction that long predates Snidely Whiplash.
 * Before you nominate the image for deletion at Commons, please note that such a debate (based on the same arguments) already has occurred. —David Levy 23:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * antagonizes damsels/Mounties
 * unspecified
 * }
 * That last trait ("behavior") is important, as a character's use can constitute (or contribute to) copyright infringement, even when its design is largely dissimilar. (A notable example is the Munchkin video game, which was deemed an unlawful copy of Pac-Man despite the titular characters' non-resemblance to each other.)  If J.J.'s character were used in a specific context similar to that of Snidely Whiplash (beyond merely being labeled a "villain"), that would change matters, but this is not so.
 * You've repeatedly stressed that Wikipedia has inappropriately used the image (both as "picture of the day" and in the Snidely Whiplash article) to illustrate Snidely Whiplash. This is not disputed.  It has occurred repeatedly, and it's a significant problem with legal ramifications.  You also are correct that this likely led to the image's widespread use to depict Snidely Whiplash on various websites.
 * None of this, however, pertains to the image's intrinsic properties or its copyright holder's intent. That intent, in my view, was not to create a Snidely Whiplash lookalike (and purposely insert differences to hide this), but to create a villain exhibiting characteristics widely associated with stock villains of stage and screen (just as Snidely Whiplash's creator did).
 * And that's what we're left with. The extent of the similarity is that both characters are villainous, scowling men with top hats, dark hair and handlebar mustaches.  Apart from being drawn, J.J.'s character bears as much resemblance to this 1913 character and this 1914 character as he does to Snidely Whiplash.  And like Snidely Whiplash, those silent film characters actually fought heroes and tied women to train tracks.  (J.J.'s villain character, conversely, has no known behavioral traits beyond his pose.)
 * That both Snidely Whiplash and J.J.'s villain character are drawn is a major reason why the latter would be mistaken for the former. I'm aware of no similar cartoon character with wider recognition than Snidely Whiplash, so it's likely that any drawing of a villainous, scowling man with a top hat, dark hair and handlebar mustache would be mistaken by some for Snidely Whiplash (simply because no other cartoon character springs to mind).  This doesn't mean that any drawing of a villainous, scowling man with a top hat, dark hair and handlebar mustache constitutes copyright infringement.  This is a stereotypical depiction that long predates Snidely Whiplash.
 * Before you nominate the image for deletion at Commons, please note that such a debate (based on the same arguments) already has occurred. —David Levy 23:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure what I will do now. It seems if I am to pursue this at all, the wisest approach is to contact Warner Bros. Entertainment Group. If they “gotta problem with it,” that will probably be the end of this image on Commons. If W-B doesn’t have a problem, then neither do I. Greg L (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, Snidely Whiplash is not a Hanna-Barbera character, so Warner Bros. (which absorbed Hanna-Barbera) is not the rights holder.
 * As noted above, Snidely Whiplash is a character of Jay Ward Productions. That catalog now belongs to Classic Media, whose website displays the contact information that you would need.
 * Please be sure to also bring to their attention Dick Dastardly, the Hanna-Barbera (now Warner Bros.) character that you describe above as one and the same. Surely, Classic Media will want to seek compensation for the forty years of egregious copyright infringement that you apparently believe has occurred (assuming that it now is clear to you that Snidely Whiplash is not a Hanna-Barbera character).  —David Levy 05:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right you are. Jay Ward productions was absorbed by Classic Media, yes? If they don’t have a problem, then neither do I. Greg L (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * [Unindent] Honestly, given the amount of copyfraud I've seen, I don't see how them objecting would necessarily prove anything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest speedy close. Can't see this going much further, and this is taking up lots of room. --jjron (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)