In a message dated 10/2/2008 9:47:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
Their purpose was a marketting one to encourage the public to see the whole film.>>
------------ I agree with this analysis and would just like people to understand that a copyright owner is very unlikely to sue us, unless we're reducing his/her potential income. If contrariwise, our work actually creates new income streams (as I contend it does in some cases), they will love us and promote us.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
Well, placing movie trailers in articles raises the question if whether or not we are violating the Advertising policy and if we are straying too far from the informative side of things. This is interesting.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/2/2008 9:47:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
Their purpose was a marketting one to encourage the public to see the whole film.>>
I agree with this analysis and would just like people to understand that a copyright owner is very unlikely to sue us, unless we're reducing his/her potential income. If contrariwise, our work actually creates new income streams (as I contend it does in some cases), they will love us and promote us.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Kevin Wong wikipedianmarlith@gmail.com wrote:
Well, placing movie trailers in articles raises the question if whether or not we are violating the Advertising policy and if we are straying too far from the informative side of things. This is interesting.
We're not placing the movie trailers in articles. What some people are doing is taking still images from movie trailers and using them to illustrate articles on the movie or the actors.
-Matt
Oh! I see.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Kevin Wong wikipedianmarlith@gmail.com wrote:
Well, placing movie trailers in articles raises the question if whether
or
not we are violating the Advertising policy and if we are straying too
far
from the informative side of things. This is interesting.
We're not placing the movie trailers in articles. What some people are doing is taking still images from movie trailers and using them to illustrate articles on the movie or the actors.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Kevin Wong wrote:
Well, placing movie trailers in articles raises the question if whether or not we are violating the Advertising policy and if we are straying too far from the informative side of things. This is interesting.
With that kind of reasoning we can use any argument to defeat ourselves. It ranks right there with those elementary mathematical arguments that prove that 0 = 1, and that depend on a disguised division by zero.
Advertising policy depends on the purpose for including the advertising material. The trailer is about some movie, and is used primarily to illustrate an article about that movie. To see the trailer the user most likely needs to go to the relevant article first; it will not help him to find the article. We are not randomly presenting the trailer on our main page. The obvious fact that certain material was originally produced for advertising does not imply that our use of the material is advertising.
Ec
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote
In a message dated 10/2/2008 9:47:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
Their purpose was a marketting one to encourage the public to see the whole film.>>
I agree with this analysis and would just like people to understand that a copyright owner is very unlikely to sue us, unless we're reducing his/her potential income. If contrariwise, our work actually creates new income streams (as I contend it does in some cases), they will love us and promote us.
Will Johnson