Forum:TV Comic & other periodical issues: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:TV Comic & other periodical issues (edit)

Revision as of 20:18, 5 September 2024

16,152 bytes added , 5 September

no edit summary

Borisashton

Trusted

44,424

edits

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 ::Given this context I think I'm still against, and consider it far closer to the line than the median picture on the wiki, but I do agree that it's not as cut and dry as I thought it was. I greatly apologize for my mistake. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
+One day I'll take part in a debate on this site without someone making a personal attack about my personal life. Wasn't today. Ah well.
+To respond to your statement about issue 2, my stance is not that "Factor 2" is never useful for when something is academic, or historical, or the like. My point is that when it comes to analysis of pop culture it doesn't matter. Factor 2 is not important to this discussion at all - it neither furthers the case of fair use being a precedent here nor disproves that this would be fair use. Rambling about it further might imply some understanding of the topic but it has no consequence on the discussion at hand. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 00:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
+:You've misinterpreted my comment. I did not do that. Indeed, I directly denied doing so in the comment. It's neither a personal attack to say that someone's views are potentially incorrect, nor that they have epistemological limitations. I neither expect, nor want an apology, but in the future, I'd appreciate it if you interpret my comments where I explicitly deny an interpretation as honestly reflecting my views. [[T:FAITH]] and all that. I'm a pedantic little shit, isn't that an easier interpretation than that I'm constantly trying to insult people. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
+::…Look, not to put too fine a point on it, but the last couple of messages of back-and-forth between you two seem to me to ''only'' make sense in knowledge of certain details of Ottsel's personal life which Najawin happens to know about, but which Ottsel has otherwise very deliberately not made public. Though I do trust no malice was intended, this does make the suggestion of potential wrongdoing on Ottsel's part all the worse for the fact that it's all done through half-unstated implication, and that people not previously in on the shared knowledge here would either have no way of checking what activities of Ottsel's this is all referring to and making up their own mind, ''or'' be incentivised to look into Ottsel's identity for the same reason. That's… not good.
+::Admittedly Ottsel "started it" to a degree with "I likely have the most experience out of everyone here", but that's no excuse for going a more accusatory route with it. I dunno if it's NPA material, but it's for sure skirting the ''anti-doxxing'' policies and I'm very uncomfortable with the way the last few rounds of messages have gone… Honestly, this is not often invoked but '''to minimise damage I ''would'' be inclined to delete the last few messages and start again. I won't take it upon myself to do it unilaterally, but if Ottsel requests it — that's an option, let it be known.'''
+::Anyway, taking the privacy thing as said… look. Sure, it isn't "a personal attack to say that someone's views are potentially incorrect", but Najawin, you were discussing the (in your opinion, seemingly likely) potentiality of Ottsel ''breaking the law in the course of his job''; how would you feel if Ottsel somehow found out what your job was, and then made insinuations that you were confused about some basic aspect of the legalities of that job, in a way which meant you'd potentially been breaking the law for years? Really now. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 05:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
+:::(Actually, OS25 ''has'' made those details public on this site ages ago, effectively, and I called his attention to this fact on another wiki so he could get them removed by contacting Fandom, in good faith. With that said, feel free to do so. Fair enough.)
+:::As for the issue of ''breaking the law'', there's breaking the law, and there's breaking the law. My statement was that OS25 was technically incorrect about a civil matter that practically everyone is incorrect about, and that the civil matter is wildly counter intuitive and poorly designed for the situation as people currently exist. It's like, I dunno, if OS25 suggested that in the normal course of my job I regularly jaywalked and mistakenly thought this was legal (I mean, depending on jurisdiction). To your mind is this a personal attack? It isn't to mine. If OS25 is focusing on the illegality of it all and is upset solely for that aspect, fair enough, I apologize. It's just not something I ever contemplated that people would immediately associate a statement that technical civil offenses occurred with, well, personal attacks. (And it would be astonishingly hypocritical of me to frame things in that way, especially given my comments as to how I view copyright in the other thread. Let he who has never used scihub cast the first stone.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 06:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
+: “''Actually, OS25 *has* made those details public on this site ages ago, effectively''”
+Inadvertently, and then he removed them again. ''This is how doxxing (practically) always work''. Few doxxers are fiendish hackers getting access to encrypted data; humans are fallible creatures and doxxers tend to simply follow trails of careless breadcrumbs. It suffices that the information was not public ''in practice''; that a dedicated investigator could, at any time, dig it up using cross-referenced 'public' data is trivial, since that's precisely what the doxxer's actions ''were''. The infamous Amorkuz case was much the same.
+And no, it's not the same as if "in the normal course of my job I regularly jaywalked" (unless your job was such that a fuss being kicked up about it was likely to get you fired/ostracised from said job). Whether the rule is ethically right or wrong, an unbreaking good-faith abidance by some understanding of the rule is a fundamental precondition of… the activity under discussion. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 06:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
+:No, this info is ''still there''. (Let me emphasize that, again, I came across this info while looking for something entirely different and it actively causes me distress that it's still there, since to remove it properly requires fandom level perms.)
+::Whether the rule is ethically right or wrong, an unbreaking good-faith abidance by some understanding of the rule is a fundamental precondition of… the activity under discussion.
+:"Some understanding" is doing a ''lot'' of heavy lifting here. In the hypothetical we could just say that so long as you don't run out in front of traffic and cause a car wreck the hypothetical field doesn't care about jaywalking. And, you know, I say this as someone who considers themselves friends with some people engaged in the activity in question. The statements I made are solely positive, not normative. But if the illegality of it all offended OS25, again, I apologize for that section. It was not, in any way, intended as a personal attack. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 06:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
+::If the mere knowledge of its persistence in some out-of-the-way places "actively distresses you" then don't go around blabbing about it on wholly public threads! Land'sakes! Your apology for the attack-adjacent bit is appreciated, but please do also apologise for the privacy thing, ''please''. (And consent to have the messages deleted if Ottsel takes me up on that proposal would be appreciated as a gesture of goodwill.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 10:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
+:::Well I certainly didn't indicate ''where'' it was. And I already did consent! Above, in the first response to you! And I do agree that the wording of my comment on the privacy front is unfortunate, but it still feels to me to be the only way to explain to OS25 how I objected to his characterization of his claimed expertise, and how it's slightly more nuanced. I could be vaguer still! But I felt that those responses would be curt and entirely unhelpful, and given the tensions between us in the past, I figured an actual explanation would be best, and tried both to be quite vague in that section, and to explicitly note that it wasn't directly referring to him in specific, but to characteristics of, well, large swathes of our society. Obviously this was mistaken. I apologize for that, and will adjust accordingly. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
+:: “''And I already did consent! Above, in the first response to you!''”
+: Aaah, I somehow misread "feel free to do so" as a suggestion that I should try to tell Ottsel the same thing you had, about getting the hard-to-delete details removed by Fandom, and see if I had any more luck than you. I didn't realise you were referring to my deletion suggestion. My mistake entirely.
+: The rest of the apology is at any rate appreciated. As regards the fact that continuing to discuss the privacy-skiritng info was the only direct way to reply to Ottsel's slip — well, yes. And I did acknowledge that he'd started in a minor way. But I think the right thing to do would have been to point Ottsel's slip out to him on his talk page and ask him how to proceed (i.e. whether he had really meant to put that topic on the table in a way that would bear further scrutiny), and only engage with the point with his assent. Difficult waters, of course, I'm not saying it was ''egregiously'' negligent not to think to do this or anything — but a combination of that ''and'' the NPA-skirtingly-accusatory nature of the discussion itself made for a bad mix. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 19:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
+I realised that this is relates to my question; would this proposal also apply to individual issues of ''[[Radio Times]]'', both those that print DW comic strips and those where the show adorns their covers? As I mentioned elsewhere, the BBC now have a whole online archive for RT issues up to at least 2019, which makes getting specific issue numbers a whole lot easier. [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
+I think it would, yeah. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
+: In regards to stuff like ''Radio Times'', I think being able to cite non-fiction to specific issues would probably be a good thing, so people know what issue to search for the information provided. In terms of fiction such as comics, I see no harm in giving pages to issues that print it. (Although with non-fiction, I suppose it becomes a bit more difficult to figure out what's "relevant enough"...) [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
+:: Well, this all got very heated. With minds hopefully having cooled, are there any additional comments on the actual proposal? [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 12:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
+::: I guess my only note is that a front cover is a specific thing. It is designed, by its nature, to be seen by the public without the exchange of money. Back in the day, you could easily walk up to a comic stand, look at the full front page of a periodical, and leave without spending a single dime. Because of that, I do not humor any argument that uploading images of the front covers of these publications is copyright infringement, the ''point'' is that we can look at these covers. It's no different to someone saying that uploading the cover of [[DWM 555]] should be banned because ''someone owns the rights to that picture of Tom Baker!'' (This debate is mostly over, I'm sure opinions like this have already been voiced) [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 23:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::Does such a market currently exist? Were one to exist in the future, would the hypothetical person who wished to see the front of the magazine be drawing views away from that market place by viewing these frontpieces here instead? Would we offer the option to purchase the whole magazine here, while the market does? These questions are all relevant to this comparison, it's not quite as cut and dry as is being suggested. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::: Returning to this months later... Yes, I think if an online market existed today for TV Comic to reprint and re-sell old issues, ''the front covers would '''absolutely''' be on display''. If an equivalent magazine does exist, I'm sure the front cover absolutely is published on all online markets. So, yes, for the sake of clarity and archival work it absolutely would be fine, IMO, to show the front page. If, as a theoretical, I made a fan guide to collecting British comics and I had several pages dedicated to showing all these TV Comic fronts, ''that would fly in the current market as fair use.'' If we're being honest, the same can not be said of everything on this site we get away with!
+::::: The important part of this is that we are not using this material for the original purpose - we are not a ''Tom & Jerry'' Wiki, we are not republishing the full comics, and people are not coming here to read said work. People ''will'' be coming here to look up occasional confusions about periodicals. For instance - if you buy a TV Comic lot and the # is torn off a few issues, you can pop over to the Wiki and scroll through the covers until you find the one you have. (Obviously, you could figure out the issue number by studying the inside portions, but that's irrelevant to our purpose as a fan aide.)
+::::: Either way, the most important thing here is that we only seem to get invested in things like ''laws'' and specifically ''American legal defenses'' when it comes to new things we're changing on the site. Showing TV Comic covers is equally as legally justified as showing DWM covers - we could very easily get sued by Panini if they wanted it, but it's not going to happen. In the end, that's the most important talking point. ''It's not going to happen.'' [[User:OttselSpy25|OttselSpy25]] [[User talk:OttselSpy25|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
+I'm unconvinced that the ''whole of the first page'' would be showed in the hypothetical new market. Nor do I think it's analogous to DWM covers, as those aren't ''comic panels''. (I also think ''Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books'' is substantially nicer to much of what we do here than you're suggesting, but, yes, we probably tread a little close to the line at times - most specifically wrt our coverage of IU non narrative stuff.) Regardless, I think we won't see eye to eye on this. Oh well! [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
+As far as the original proposition to give pages to issues containing DWU content goes, I agree with the consensus that these should be allowed. Especically in light of the recently-closed [[Forum:Coverage: other TV magazines features Doctor Who coverage]], this seems like a logical follow-up.
+With regards to the cover images debate, I confess my feelings one way or the other aren't too strong but one thing which should be mentioned is that we aren't just talking about ''Popeye'' and ''Tom & Jerry'' comics here. For a few months in 1967, the front cover was the first page of the ''Doctor Who'' strip as well which is perhaps more pertinent to this Wiki. For another example which would come under this precedent, the [[TV Century 21 cover stories|''TV21'' cover stories]] would also be uploaded in full if complete front cover images are allowed. --[[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)