Template talk:Marvel-Comics-trademark-copyright

Template content change

Good grief, what a lousy time to forget to log in. This 2009-02-21 edit (diff) by 76.235.129.50, replacing the legal notice language with a more limited trademark warning, was mine. I know the edit was bold and take responsibility for it. No IP subterfuge was intended. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there was a TfD (see the note box with the clipboard) regarding this and like templates. The result there was "No consensus", leaving the template in the full blown status quo. Of which you are well aware ad the nom for the TfD.

Frankly, this is the formatting Marvel, and others, use with the publications. There is no reason to believe that it is inappropriate here.

- J Greb (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on deletion is not consensus on modification.

If you would like to keep the prior wording, keep in mind that I dispute every point made in the prior wording. I dispute: 1) All Marvel characters are copyrighted, 2) All Marvel characters are trademarked, 3) All likenesses are copyrighted, 4) All likenesses are trademarked, 5) 2009 is a valid effective date for the image copyrights, in whole or in part, 6) The owner is Marvel Characters, Inc., and 7) The owner reserves "all rights." Disputed information on Wikipedia that doesn't cite a reliable source (preferably third-party) may be removed.

I don't want to come off as confrontational or Wikilawyering; this isn't me saying "ah ha, WP:V says I win." This is a valuable opportunity for people to learn the specific function of legal notice (i.e. the reason why notices are given or not given), who does or doesn't have standing to be giving notice on a third party's behalf, and what the language of a copyright notice really means. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem is you've been bold and reverted, now would be the time to hash out the problems before you reinstate your changes.

As for the points:

1. All published works that include a notice of copyright are covered as of the date of the copyright notice. All Marvel publications carry such a notice covering the contents of the publication.
2. The notices also specify that the contents are covered by trademark. This includes the "distinctive likenesses".
3. See 2
4. See 2
5. Copyrights are based on the date the copyright is secured, not the current date. That is, the material Marvel put under copyright in 1963 has a termination date based on 1963 not 2009. With regards to this the "range", be it the full span of 1941 through 2009 or a partial from when the featured character(s) first appeared through 2009, is reasonable if uploaders are unwilling or unable to provide the date of the publication in which the image was first published. And yes, the publishers are currently using 2009 in copyright notices.
6. See 1 and 2
7. See 1 and 2
8. Yes, you are coming off as a Wikilawyer since you are stating that the notices that Marvel places on its publications are not valid without a 3rd party source affirming them. Unfortunately this is an instance where the primary source - the notice as issued - is a valid and reasonable source for the information.

Now, could the template be reworded? Likely. To the stripped down version you want? Unlikely.

Are you willing to discuss this or are you going to bull forward as a confrontational wikilawyer?

- J Greb (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts:

• Is this needed? The important distinction is whether it is public domain or not, for the purposes of fair use. The TfD suggests it is, although I'm open to debate (it seems overkill to me but I've found when it comes to copyright issues it is usually best to cover your ass because dropping the ball could cause an awful lot of bother).
• If so then we should base it on what Marvel say (to avoid accusations of WP:V) and/or link to their copyright details at Marvel.com.

We could even drop their copyright guy a line and see what he wants it to say - that would certainly head off controversy. (Emperor (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

• Surely if you want to dispute what Marvel holds copyright on and trademarks to, you're better off filing suit against Marvel or having the discussion with Marvel? I can't actually see how WP:V applies here, since we aren't discussing anything in article space. Otherwise, I suggest you raise your concerns with the Wikimedia foundation's legal counsel, User:MGodwin, if you are concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation is inappropriately giving notice on a third party's behalf. Hiding T 17:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a whole lot to add, since I think the others above (J Greb, Emperor, Hiding) seem to cover the points rather well.

That said, I'm wondering what spurred these concerns. Why the wish to change the wording. If the concern is that Wikipedia is "opening itself up to a lawsuit", then IANAL (and further, am not Wikipedia's lawyer), and agree with Hiding that MGodwin should be one of the next ports of call.

All of this aside, I wonder if we should ask him about whether we should ask Marvel (and DC, et al) about what their preferred wording is...

(FOr one thing, I'd like to avoid another NFC kerfuffle (though at least it's a fun word to type : ) - jc37 17:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If Marvel says "grass is green," Wikipedia could also say "grass is green," but it would be even better for Wikipedia to say "Marvel says grass is green," especially when some pain-in-the-butt editor keeps insisting on talk pages that sometimes grass turns brown.

Colorful metaphors aside, copypasting Marvel's copyright notices verbatim (aside from amusing irony factor) has multiple problems. Most importantly, Marvel's far-reaching claims are borderline unverifiable. There's nothing supporting them as fact other than repetition by the publisher. Second, it's an extreme POV analysis of law. Characters aren't copyrighted except as elements of a copyrighted work -- the only people who make reaching IP claims beyond that are publishers. Characters aren't trademarked, either, unless they're used to identify the source of a product. Third, it's phrased using legal notice language, and that language doesn't translate well to Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. For example, "Marvel's characters are Marvel's" -- in Marvel comic small print, it makes sense, on Wikipedia, it's non-information.

I'll agree that identifying Marvel Characters, Inc. as the significant IP claimant for most Marvel associated characters is useful, verifiable, and NPOV information. And I'll agree that the word "claim" doesn't translate well to the language of Wikipedia (it's a strong word in legalese, a weak word here) and a stronger word like "rights" might get the idea across better. As for the rest of it, it's disputed, unreferenced, POV, likely unverifiable material, and I don't see how being in Image space shields it. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ah. I'm beginning to understand where the problem may lie. From my end, I don't see anyone saying that sometimes the grass turns brown. I see someone who is saying that they don't agree that the grass is green just because Marvel says it is, and anyway who is Marvel to say what color the grass is. Maybe we should see if we can agree on what color is first. Let's get agreement that the verifiability policy tends to apply to articles, especially when we consider that the policy itself states Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. (my emphasis).
• So, the basic nub of the discussion is that in your opinion Wikipedia is wrong to use the wording it currently uses in this template. Now the way disputes get resolved on Wikipedia is through determining consensus, so you've pretty much got to convince people of your opinion. However, you do seem to be couching your opinion in legalese, if you don't mind me saying. Which is leading me to believe that you should be discussing the matter with the Foundation and their lawyer, because you seem to be saying that Wikipedia is breaking the law somehow, and if that is the case, that's best addressed with the Foundation's legal counsel, wouldn't you agree?
• Otherwise, it seems to me that the best thing is to concentrate on appropriate policy. In this instance, the appropriate policy is Wikipedia:Image use policy and associated guidance, I'm sure we can all agree on that and agree to use that to resolve any issues that may occur.
• So, can we get agreement that policy calls for us to identify the copyright holder and any trademark rights? That's based on clause 10 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Logos. Moving on from that, is the argument basically about the best way to identify additional legal restrictions concerning the trademark status of such images? Looking at Wikipedia:Logos, the guidance there is to just use Template:Trademark. Would that solve the whole issue? Otherwise, we should look to introduce language used on that template. I don't agree with Matt's amendments, because I don't believe we are displaying a depiction of a Marvel Comics work, and I think it complicates the issue, especially when we can better say "This image..."

This image contains material, such as characters and likenesses, which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Certain commercial use of this image may be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos.

• So that would be my thoughts on a way of resolving the dispute. Personally, I'm thinking maybe we just need to use Template:Trademark. The 2000 AD advice dates from a long time ago, when we used to use images with permission. Now we simply rely on a fair use defence, and any permissions aren't needed or valid, and nor are any requests we were expected to fill based on such permissions. Hiding T 12:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement, Hiding, and I'm very sorry that my own legalese and nitpicking have obscured my position! My position is that a copyright unlicense template, such as {{Non-free character}} and {{Non-free comic}}, is enough. I concede that a trademark disclaimer template, in addition to the general disclaimer at the bottom of every page, is encouraged under the WP:Logos guideline (I think the general disclaimer is enough but I'm not going to fight that point here and now). I've only been proposing alternate text for this template as a compromise with editors who believe the disclaimer needs to be a broad and detailed notice in legalese. If I were to ignore consensus and do what I want, I'd blank the sucker. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Can we tone down the ad hominem and name calling? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed any, but I'm sure everyone would agree that if any did occur, it would be better to nip it in the bud. Hiding T 12:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so for now it appears it's just the handful of us interested in this editing dispute. Let's see how much consensus we can work out. Maybe we should take it one question at a time. I think Emperor's question "Is this needed?" is a good place to start. Reiterating my opinion, I don't believe it's needed. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiding indicates these templates are not needed (apologies if I've misunderstood your position). I don't think they're needed: unlikely to do harm, but even less likely to do any good. The templates are well intentioned, but if consensus is that a copyright unlicense template plus a trademark warning template are sufficient, I think I should relist at TfD. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)