Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

shocking plot summary errors

When Nancy's "defeated" Freddy by not fearing him after her mother died, it didn't revert any deaths. Actually, it is New Line's official stance that she never pulled Freddy out of the dream at all, but that she was still dreaming. Thus, she walks through the door and all of a sudden everyone is alive again. It's all the same dream, folks. She weakened Freddy, but didn't beat him. Everyone stayed dead .

That's the way I interpeted it. Plus the dream like quality of that segment was impossible to miss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.194.127.112 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Chat

I wouldn't mind if you moved around my notes of Wes Craven's direction techniques in the article but I do not agree with deleting them all together. It is how the film was directed so surely it would be appropriate to put them into the article. Also your reason for deleting them is somewhat frivolous and "integrating into new notes section" is a bit vague. Thunder Cat

The first paragraph about the newspaper articles: wasn't that just one child and not a group of "Cambodian refugees" suffering from this problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pwv1 (talk • contribs) .

I have always read that it was a family of children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bignole (talk • contribs) .

I haven't listened to the DVD commentary (my primary source for that note) in a while, but I believe he mentions multiple families. I should be able to check in a few days.--Sean|Black 19:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

He mentions a series of articles in the LA times, and the children dying in a second nightmare. He goes on to comment its a huge problem in Thailand. Nowhere is Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge mentioned. Unless someone has a valid reference for this, can someone please remove it from the article? LuciferMorgan 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

i have tried to find these supposed articles before, to no luck. if anyone can track them down, it would be good to settle this bit of trivia. also i personally am very interested. thanks! --dan 06:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing "In 2006, no-budget horror comedy filmmaker Kevin Strange[1] released “Dream Reaper[2]” inspired by “A Nightmare on Elm Street.” In his hilarious film, a hooded being kills members of an epic fantasy metal band. Specific nods to “Nightmare” include a montage takeoff on Alice shadow boxing in “Dream Master.”", this is completly out of place and seems like an advertisement for this film.

Childhood's end?

i just removed "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke is referenced when Nancy Thompson combats Freddy Krueger with "Booby Traps" from the trivia. i'll admit, i haven't read that book in awhile, but i am really not seeing this reference. does anyone have a source for this, or at least know what it refers to? i'm also suspicious about the 2001 reference listed, but i left it in for now. it takes more than a picture of saturn to be a reference to another film, though. --dan 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio from IMDB or uncited claims

Several bits of the article (in particular, most of the 'Production' section) are almost identical to parts of IMDB's trivia entry for the film. I'm guessing that both this article and IMDB are getting their info from the director's commentary or some such, in which case this material ought to be referenced accordingly. But if this material is sourced directly from IMDB, it's probably copyvio as it stands, and needs to be deleted or rewritten. --Calair 16:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read what you are talking about, but if it's sourced to IMDb, then that isn't Copyvio. The fact that IMDb may have gotten it from the Director's Commentary is irrelevant to the fact that the editor is crediting IMDb. As long as IMDb credits where they got their information from then it's ok. You cannot check other sources' source, that would fall under original research. Bignole 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand how copyright law works. Repeating large chunks of material verbatim (or almost verbatim) from a copyright source is generally copyvio, even if it acknowledges that source - we don't get to cut-and-paste from the latest Britannica or Encarta, regardless of how much credit we give them. (And as it happens, the section does not identify any source at all for this material.)
The similarities between this section and IMDB are far too close to be coincidence. If somebody has cut-and-pasted this information from IMDB, then that's copyvio, even if they've made a few minor changes to the wording, regardless of whether it's credited. If they've got it off the director's commentary and submitted the same content (in their own words) to both IMDB and Wikipedia, that's probably not copyvio, but then the commentary needs to be acknowledged as the source for this information. --Calair 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't mention anything about "repeating large chunks of material verbatim". I assumed you were talking about some trivia, since you said it was in a trivia section in IMDb, not some huge paragraph of information. If someone hasn't acknowledged where they got their information (which I didn't address previously either) then you can either put the "fact" tag by it, or remove it completely; that's your choice as far as I'm concerned. They are responsible for finding the source, not someone else, thus you have the right to remove it. As for citing IMDb, when IMDb takes it from the Director's Commentary, I already said that if IMDb doesn't explicitly say that (i.e. At the beginning of whatever they stole, does it say "all information is taken from the Director's commentary", or atleast say that somewhere on the page) then your source is IMDb, and whoever their source is is up to them to provide. Tracking down the sources of your source is considered original research. Everything comes from the same melting pot, it's just about who you get your share from. If the website that they got the information from is IMDb, then that is what they cite. If IMDb got it from a Director's commentary then that is what IMDb must cite. If you get it from IMDb, and IMDb says clearly where they got it from, then you need to cite both. Bignole 18:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I provided a link above to the IMDB trivia page and identified which section of this article I was talking about, specifically so people could easily compare the two for themselves without needing to guess what I was talking about.
As for the rest, you're missing the point. I am not saying "if we got it from IMDB, and they got it from the director's commentary without attribution, then we have to cite the commentary". What I am saying is that if the information first appeared in this form on IMDB, then including it in almost-identical form here with minor rewording is copyvio (regardless of who we credit) and it needs to be removed. OTOH, if it did not come to this article from IMDB - say, if somebody listened to the commentary, compiled those facts in their own words, and then submitted them both to Wikipedia and to IMDB - then that would not be copyvio. If the latter is the case, the source should be identified to make it clear that this was not just lifted from IMDB. I'm not looking for a source on WP:Verifiability grounds here, but to establish whether this article is using material that's owned by IMDB, and the origin of that material is quite relevant, as explained on WP:Copyright.
Remember, copyright is not about the information contained, it's about the expression of that information. For instance, IMDB says: "This was the first real movie by New Line Cinema. Before that, they were just a distribution company..." and this article says "It was the first real film made by New Line. Before that, they were merely a distribution company..."
Merely telling readers that New Line hadn't made a film before this, and that it had previously been a distributor, isn't copyvio. But doing it in virtually identical words and phrasings is, if IMDB owned those words before they were submitted to Wikipedia. (Note that this is just one example; there are a lot of bits in this article virtually identical to IMDB content, or I wouldn't have made an issue of it.) If the origin of this material can't be clarified I'll delete it, but I'd rather give people a chance to fix it up first. --Calair 04:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If you say "this is what's in the article, and it's almost verbatim what's on IMDb" then I'll take your word for it. Again, if it's true "trivia" and not production notes, then you really can't "reword" trivia in a way that wouldn't lose it's affect. There are proper ways to cite it if you are going to use an entire exert from a source. Yes, you can use entire passages from a source IF, and only IF, they are properly noted. I haven't compared the two, and I don't plan on it because I have other things to do (like argue about silly things on pages that have more problems than that just copyvio [yes that's this page]). If it's production notes that they are using, then yes it needs to be reworded, or atleast quoted as such, instead of trying to claim it's their own wording when in fact they stole it. As for the example you cited (about New Line's first film), that wasn't enough of a change to NOT warrent a submission for plagarism. I think you are confusing plagarism for copyright violations. You can't "own words" like that. You're thinking of a "trademark"; but even then it's about owning the commercialability of the word that is trademarked (i.e. like the word Superboy, which Warner Brothers owns). You cannot trademark (or copyright) "New Line's first film was Nightmare..", because it isn't a commercialized term. It's a general statement. The only thing that can be legalized is the plagarization of IMDb, without proper citation. If someone has plagarized sections then they need to be corrected. IMDb doesn't own a copyright on trivia for Nightmare. Trivia is trivia, no one owns it. But if you use it without citing your source then you are plagarizing. I think this article has a case of the plag, rather than a case of the copyvio. Bignole 04:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You can't "own words" like that. You're thinking of a "trademark"; but even then it's about owning the commercialability of the word that is trademarked - nope. I'm well aware of the difference between trademark and copyright. Copyright cannot protect individual words - anybody can use the words "first", "distribution", and "made" without infringing on IMDB or anybody else. But it does protect the way in which a particular idea is expressed, and when words are strung together to express an idea, that is something that is indeed covered by copyright - not the idea itself, but the way it's worded. (Done without attribution it can be both copyvio and plagiarism; proper attribution negates plagiarism, but not copyvio.)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica is full of everyday words, and its owners/authors/editors/etc do not own any of those individual words (excepting a very few trademarked ones such as 'Britannica' itself). But they most certainly do own the copyright to their text - that is, a particular way of combining those words - and somebody who copies that text and makes it available without their permission is in breach of copyright (excepting fair use etc). The same rule applies here. --Calair 06:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing it. IMDb doesn't have copyright on that information. It's a public website. Unless they got the information from an area that they had to pay for, then it's not copyrighted. It's simple plagarism. EB is a commercialized book, IMDb is not. There are areas that require paid membership, but if they got that information from an area that doesn't require it (i.e. they didn't because you were able to find it without putting in some paid membership ID), then it's plagarism. First and foremost, you don't know what IMDb's copyrights are. You are assuming they own the copyright just because they print it on a website, but people print things everyday that they don't own (obvsiously, we wouldn't be here if they didn't). IMDb is notoriously unreliable, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were stealing information. You said, "and somebody who copies that text and makes it available without their permission is in breach of copyright (excepting fair use etc). The same rule applies here."; information is information, it isn't owned like an image or a fictional character. It all falls under fair use because of it's status as PUBLIC. If someone is quoting IMDb without the actual quotations, or copying sections without a nice little into explaining where they got the information then they are plagarizing other websites. In which you either remove it or cite the properly, I really don't care which. Bignole 11:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of material that is protected by intellectual property rights law particularly the copyright in a manner that violates one of the original copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it. "

"Plagiarism is the practice of (dishonestly) claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created, such as when a person incorporates material from someone else's work into his own work without attributing it."

"Plagiarism is not necessarily the same as copyright infringement, which occurs when one violates copyright law. The copying of a few sentences for a quotation is fair use under copyright law, but, if not attributed to the true author, it is plagiarism."

It's quite obvious which one has been done on this page, because IMDb doesn't "own" the exclusive rights to that information. They don't because it's trivia about a film, it's public information. They only thing they've done is publish their wording, which isn't copyrighted, but protected under a civil agreement that if violated can lead to lawsuits, not criminal time. HERE describes the different types of plagarism, and it's much more likely it was an "accidental plagarize". As for Encyc. Brit, they don't own a copyright on the information inside their books. That information is not exclusive to their books. All they have done is compiled public information into a set of books. The own that set. If someone tries to make a similar set w/out permission then yes they have violated a copyright, but using passages isn't copyvio. You'd never be able to get "permission from the owner" (as you said) when you were writing a research paper and used them as a source. They published the wording, yes, but that only means it's a plagaristic act, not a copyvio. You cannot copyright a summary of words, not unless it's some sort of commercialized phrase like "Yahooooooooo". It's plagarism, not copyvio. Bignole 12:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I see others are already correcting Bignole's misconceptions about copyright violation, but I haven't seen this particular phrase addressed: "Tracking down the sources of your source is considered original research." This is not correct. Trying to second-guess your sources can be original research -- if for example you say "Alice credits Bob with the film's success but obviously Alice was wrong because Bob couldn't have made that big of a difference." But it is not original research to check the sources your sources used, and if need be, even to highlight apparent conflicts between primary and secondary sources -- for instance "Alice credits Bob with the film's success, citing his imaginative design for the monster in the climactic scene. However, the film's credits indicate that the monster was actually designed and built by Charles, not by Bob." -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for the incorrect interpretation of the original research. I could have sworn that I read in one of Wiki's policies that searching a source's sources would be original research. But, to the main point, what misconception of copyright would that be? Copyright violation and plagarism aren't the same thing, and copying information from another source is plagarism. Explain how the information on IMDb is "exclusively theirs" and I'll concede that it could be copyrighted (I say could, because it would require them to actually file for copyright). You can't, because the information on their site is public information and not exclusively owned by anyone. The only thing they can claim is that someone plagarized them. So, tell me how that is correct me in the concept of copyvio? Obviously there's a misconception about what a copyright actually is. You cannot copyright text that isn't exclusively yours. Here, allow me:

"Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation. In most cases, these rights are of limited duration. The symbol for copyright is © (Unicode U+00A9), and in some jurisdictions may alternatively be written as either (c) or (C)."

You're claiming that IMDb has an "original creation"...It's production notes and trivia facts. If they "originally created" that information then you can go ahead and remove it because that would make it FALSE INFORMATION. You cannot "originally create" anything about a movie's history that wasn't already there. If it was already there then obviously IMDb didn't create it.

"Copyright may subsist in a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms or "works". These include poems, theses, plays, and other literary works, movies, choreographic works (dances, ballets, etc.), musical compositions, audio recordings, paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, software, radio and television broadcasts of live and other performances, and, in some jurisdictions, industrial designs. Copyright is a type of intellectual property; designs or industrial designs may be a separate or overlapping form of intellectual property in some jurisdictions" "It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work."

The key words in that are in bold text. Notice that you can copyright a movie, but not facts about the movie. Facts are not original concepts. Also, neither is the information in an Encyclopedia Britannica original material either. The EB is a collection of facts, which are not covered in copyright laws. It's only copyrighted if it's an original concept, and facts are not original concepts, thus the section that does not cite IMDb as its source (if that really is its source) is plagarizing, not copyvio. Bignole 15:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's where you seem to be getting your confusion from. The actual facts themselves cannot be copyrighted; but a particular expression of facts can. You can express facts in your own words without violating my copyright, but you cannot copy the words I used to express those facts; that particular phrasing is considered my work, to which I have copyright. Contrary to your claim that "it would require [a copyright holder] to actually file for copyright", under the Berne Convention it is actually already copyrighted from the moment it is in fixed form.
If you do not believe this, then consider this: the song "Yankee Doodle" is in the public domain. If Eric Clapton records a cover of "Yankee Doodle", is his playing of that song automatically in the public domain, just because the song is? No -- he may have started with the 'raw material' of a song in the public domain, but he added his own work, in the form of how he chose to play that song; the work he added is why the result is not in the public domain but rather under Clapton's copyright. In just the same way, the actual facts are the raw material, but the choices made about how to express those facts represent someone else's work, and that is what makes that expression of the facts copyrightable. The facts do not have some quality of "uncopyrightability" that transfers to everything that is done with them; in fact I am not aware of anything that possesses such a quality.
Again, "copyright law covers ... the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the 'form of material expression'." That was the sentence before the one you quoted above about copyright not covering the facts, ideas, et cetera, embodied in or represented by the work. That's true, but what you missed is that copyright does cover the embodiment or representation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If the fact is "Wes Craven based Freddy Krueger on ....", you cannot copyright the sentence "Freddy Krueger was based on ....". A fact is a fact. An "original expression" does not extend to "facts". That is what YOU don't understand. There is a difference between your own expression and your wording of a fact. You are trying to imply that I can copyright "Lincoln was shot in the back of the head", because I'd be the first person to say it that way. It doesn't work that way. A fact is a fact, and you cannot copyright a different wording of a fact. Your example of Yankee Doodle does not fit what is being argued about. "Yankee Doodle" is not a collection of facts, it's a song. It was already an original concept that went into public domain and was later rewritten as someone else's original thought. FACTS are not "original concepts", they are FACTS. They state what is what, they are not an interpretation of things. You cannot reword a FACT and claim it's an original expression, that is what you are not getting, and that is why it isn't copyright violation. Copyright laws do not encompass FACTS, not even under the "original expression" claus, because you cannot "originally express" a FACT. You cannot copyright the sentence "The Earth is the third planet from the Sun", because it's a FACT. Just like you cannot copyright a sentence listing where Craven got his inspiration. The "original expression" claus is for things like songs, literature, and films that have the tendency to be dublicated over time. You cannot do that with FACTS. What you didn't notice was that in the sentence above, where you talked about "embodiment or representation", it doesn't talk about that being done with FACTS. Foremost, has anyone actually gone to IMDb to see if they even have a copyright on that work? I highly doubt they do, because the work probably falls under the GNU Free Documentation License. It's real simple, you'll see a "©" next to whatever they have that's copyrighted. If that's not there, you'll leave a note somewhere stating that it is. What you will see is that IMDb has copyrighted the entire website as a whole. They own the copyright on the compilation of everything on their site, which is provided by outside sources. It even states that if you provide them with any information (which is how they get all their information) you relenquish any fees associated by your copyright of your product, but retain exclusive ownership of it outside of their website. They still have a copyright of your text, but it falls under a copyright that encompasses EVERYTHING on their site, without discrimination. The list of FACTS is public domain, but when someone gives it to them to put on their site (or if they actually had someone from their site find it) then it becomes part of their Copyright for the sheer fact that they have copyrighted an online database that consists of a collection of information. The fact that the information originated from a Director's Commentary is irrelevant to their page. I think that is what you were trying to get at, but you still do not need their permission to use that information (if that is where you got it). Under their own license and agreement policy, you have limited access to " access and make personal use of this site" so long as you "create a hyperlink to the IMDb site so long as the link follows our linking guide and does not portray IMDb, its affiliates, or their services in a false, misleading, derogatory, or otherwise offensive matter." This does not include "This site or any portion of this site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of IMDb." But, since Wikipedia is not a commercial website, but a nonprofit online encyclopedia, it does not fall under the requirement of "permission", because anything taken from IMDb is under their own limited approval system (i.e. that encompasses the information that you do not have to pay for); so long as the proper hyperlink is created on the personal page. Bignole 19:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If the fact is "Wes Craven based Freddy Krueger on ....", you cannot copyright the sentence "Freddy Krueger was based on ....". Mostly correct, but not for the reasons you think. One of the factors considered in copyright claims is whether appearance of copyright violation might have been caused by necessity -- i.e., there are only so many ways to say "Freddy Krueger was based on ..." and so a court would be unlikely to find violation based on one such sentence. However, if what was at issue was a series of such sentences and each sentence in the allegedly infringing work matched a similar sentence in the earlier work, with no or minor rephrasings, that's a different story.
An "original expression" does not extend to "facts". That is where you are wrong. All non-fiction writing is determining the ordering and phrasing of facts but that ordering and phrasing is an original expression and thus protected by copyright.
The "original expression" claus is for things like songs, literature, and films that have the tendency to be dublicated over time. No, the "original expression" clause is for things that can be copyrighted, which includes expressions of facts. That's why it is "original expression" and not "original creation"; The Firm is John Grisham's "original creation", but The Civil War is Ken Burns' "original expression" of historical facts that were already previously known.
What you didn't notice was that in the sentence above, where you talked about "embodiment or representation", it doesn't talk about that being done with FACTS. So? In the article on murder, it doesn't specify "By the way, murder is still murder, even if it's committed by a red-haired person with green eyes." That's because no reasonable person would assume that being a red-haired person with green eyes is some sort of exception to the laws on murder.
The bottom line is that the trivia section should not be allowed to stand in its current form. Frankly, that was probably the case anyways, per WP:AVTRIV, but the fact that it may be a copyvio of IMDB's trivia section just adds even more reason. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The "trivia" section is information about the production of the film, which would probably better be served in it's own "original expression" in a section purely about "production". One cannot alter that in enough ways to justify "original expression". There would end being a half dozen copyrights of the same public domain information. You cannot justify "original expression" by changing a couple of words. Again, you list The Civil War as your example, but it isn't the same thing. There is a difference between writing an entire novel based on facts (that being an original expression), and simply listing some facts. One cannot accomplish an "original expression" by merely listing facts. "Original expression" doesn't extend to rearranging the words in a single sentence. The Civil War isn't a book contain a list of facts about the Civil War; that's not that same as the information in the trivia section which is just a list of things that occurred on the film. This is why you cannot claim "original expression" when it comes to a LIST of facts. I completely understand how you can have "original expression copyright", but that's when you are writing a non-fiction novel where one can actually include an "original expression" through the usage of said facts in a conglomoration of information, not when you are merely listing a bunch of facts. As I said, it still wouldn't be a violation of IMDb's copyright because Wiki is not a commercial enterprise and doesn't need their permission to use what is on their website (not including what's in their paid sections) as long as everything is properly cited (which it isn't anyway). Bignole 22:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is non-commercial does not exempt it from copyright laws. (Schools might be non-profit, but that doesn't mean they get to photocopy textbooks willy-nilly.) It may make a difference in some fair use considerations, but it's not a free pass. And the argument that this is on a free-access page is spurious; things like newspaper articles are still covered by copyright even if the paper makes them available free on their website. After all, IMDB are a commercial site and even 'free' pages are part of that business - they contribute to revenue through banner ads and by getting people more interested in the pay service. If Wikipedia were to mirror all of IMDB's free content, people would have much less reason to visit IMDB and that would hurt their business.
I agree that it is not a given that IMDB does own copyright over this material - in fact, I raised that as a possibility above. If somebody had written up the same trivia and submitted it to both Wikipedia and IMDB, we'd be in the clear. But "it might not be copyvio" isn't a terribly strong argument. As for the rest, I agree with Antaeus Feldspar's explanation. Anyway, since we all seem to agree that the material should be removed for one reason or another, I'll do that. --Calair 01:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Or better yet, reworked; I've done so & listed IMDB as the source for the relevant parts of the 'Production' section. If a better source can be found for these than IMDB (e.g. a citeable commentary track) that would be better, but it's not essential. --Calair 02:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that being non-commercial means you are except from the law, what I said was that since it isn't commercial we don't need IMDb's express permission to use the information that they deem as part of their "limited access for personal use". It falls under that claus of theirs because you don't have to pay for that information, unlike other areas of their site. I stated from the beginning that it still needs to be cited as to where it came from, because I'm sure it didn't spontaneously form in the editors head. If it matches IMDb then it should say that, if it doesn't match it then the closet possible source (like the original source [i.e. The director's commentary on the DVD] should be used). But, if nothing can be confirmed I say remove the lot till someone can provide a true source. Bignole 01:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
'Not commercial' is not the same thing as 'personal use'. --Calair 02:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal use isn't restricted to just a personalized website or research paper either. Anything can be argued semantically. Their claus is simply stating that you cannot use their information without permission if you are planning on using it in a commercial means. Bignole 03:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Quoting direct from IMDB's copyright info: "IMDb grants you a limited license to access and make personal use of this site and not to download (other than page caching) or modify it, or any portion of it, except with express written consent of IMDb. This site or any portion of this site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of IMDb. This license does not include any resale or commercial use of this site or its contents or any derivative use of this site or its contents." It's unclear from that wording whether the 'any commercial purpose' bit applies to the whole of the list preceding it or just to the 'otherwise exploited' bit, but the next section is clear: separate from excluding commercial use, the license also explicitly excludes any derivative use. Under that license, you're not even allowed to save IMDB content to your own hard disk, let alone stick it up on a widely-viewed website. --Calair 05:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The way that reads is like IMDb completely restricts any usage of information from their site (which didn't even originate on their site) on to another site, no matter what the reason. Hell, it reads as if it's saying that you can't even save the pages as "favorites" in your browser, cause technically that's on your hard disk. If you read it, the entire things is talking about the commercial use of their information, and doesn't say "This license does not include any resale, commercial, or non-commercial use....contents or any derivative use...". It is only talking about the commercial use of derivative works, not the non-commercial use of derivative works. There are other things at work, like the fact of determining who actually owns what on IMDb and how the information that is used on this article is public domain information taken from director commentaries; the fact that any information used from their website is used in an online encyclodia that is nonprofit, they are regularly cited as the source of the information (minus instances where someone apparently didn't cite them). It would be too hard to actually prove a copyright violation since IMDb is nothing more than a compilation of public domain facts (with exception being their plot summaries, which they could write themselves, and whatever it is they are hiding in their paid members area). I think it would be clear cut copyvio if someone copied they entire "Nightmare" page and pasted it over here. But, since IMDb is listed as the source of where the sentence of information was found, and a proper hyperlink was given to the appropriate page, there isn't any clear copyvio there (again, minus those areas where nothing is cited). The fact remains (no pun intended) that Wikipedia isn't in the business of commercializing other people's information, and the information is already public domain and could have been found anywhere, but a particular editor found it on IMDb; allowing for proper citation, the information is fine. It be too hard to actually prove copyvio considering the multiple possibilities for sources for that information. If you are that afraid of IMDb accussing Wiki of copyvio then it wouldn't be difficult to find another source for that information. I've read the same stuff on many sites, you only need to Google. Bignole 06:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hell, it reads as if it's saying that you can't even save the pages as "favorites" in your browser, cause technically that's on your hard disk." - no, because bookmarking a page doesn't download the content, it just records the URL and a title, neither of which are likely to be subject to copyright.
"If you read it, the entire things is talking about the commercial use of their information" - no, it is not. Commercial use is mentioned frequently, since that is obviously the most serious issue from IMDB's point of view, but it is not the only thing addressed in the license. For instance, "IMDb grants you a limited license to access and make personal use of this site and not to download (other than page caching) or modify it, or any portion of it, except with express written consent of IMDb" - nowhere does the notice say that those limitations are only on commercial users.
"how the information that is used on this article is public domain information taken from director commentaries" - you still seem to be confused about what copyright addresses. Copyright isn't concerned with information, but with expression. The fact that Freddy's sweater is green and red because of so-and-so is information, and copyright law doesn't restrict us from sharing that information. (In fact, we can tell readers the entire plot of Nightmare in our own words without violating New Line's copyright.) What creates a copyright infringement is when we reproduce the specific way in which IMDB or New Line express those ideas - that is, when we use their words. --Calair 01:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Bookmarking a page does place it on your hard disk. The fact that you can't access it without the internet is moot, it's technically still on your computer's hard drive, where you can find it without having to use a browser. It's a technicallity. The notice doesn't say that they are only for commercial users, right, but it doesn't specify that it isn't. The funny thing about the law is that what you read is what you but, it's meant to be objective not subjective. If they do not state it then they can't claim it. It states it's restrictions for information taken without permission is information that is being used for non-commercial reasons. It doesn't say anywhere in there that you need permission if it's for a non-commercial purpose, they just state that you MUST hyperlink them. I didn't claim their "expression" was public domain, I said the info was, as in I was saying that anyone could take their info and just rewrite it and they wouldn't be able to claim anything if there was enough of a change. You said that some of the information had different wording while others were almost verbatum. What's verbatum is much easier to prove as plagarism than as copyvio, since the original copyright doesn't belong to IMDb. And that's the problem with FACTS, because if it's merely a list, there really isn't too many different ways to write it. Bignole 04:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Bookmarking a page does place it on your hard disk. The fact that you can't access it without the internet is moot, it's technically still on your computer's hard drive, where you can find it without having to use a browser. Bignole, don't take this the wrong way, but ... maybe it would be best to find a subject that you actually know about, and try to contribute to improving coverage of that subject. You've already demonstrated that copyright and computers are two subjects that you do not know as well as you think you do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
"And that's the problem with FACTS, because if it's merely a list, there really isn't too many different ways to write it." That leads into WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." If it really isn't possible to turn such information into something better than a disjointed list of facts, it's doubtful whether it really belongs in the article at all. (See also Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles.) But in this case, it clearly was possible to provide that information without parroting IMDB's wording, because I've already reworked the article to do exactly that...--Calair 15:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In technicality it's still on your hard disk, because it's accessable through your hard drive. You can't actually read it because you'd need internet access to view the page, but if you copy an entire hard drive, guess what, your "favorites" that you've bookmarked will be transfered. It was meant as a joke fellas, geeze...seriously...lighten up. As for the copyright stuff, it seems that most people (you two included) are so afraid of violating copyrights that you think more than it is. All laws have specifics, they are not subjective to the user. IMDb's own copy states nothing about permission for non-commercial entities, only a mandatory hyperlink (done properly). The question becomes "if they don't say it can you do it?" The same thing occurred with Superboy. Superboy is owned by the Siegel family, but they automatically assumed that they owned everything associated with Superboy, like the fictional town of Smallville. Unfortunately that wasn't part of their claim, and thus it wasn't awarded to them, and they have to fight to get their copyright of Superboy expanded to include that. The point being when you deal with the law it's specific (and don't try and turn it around as to specific deeds, I mean specific in a general term..yes it sounds rather oxymoronic..but it means "stealing is stealing" no matter if you steal a candybar or a porsche.) If they say "you need permission for all commercial use then that doesn't translate to "also non-commercial use". Also, I think Calair originally said that the information looked similar to IMDb's, but wasn't word for word. We've already established that by changing words you've established your own "original express" (because we know IMDb didn't create the information themselves), so the question there becomes "did they change enough to warrant such a thing?" Bignole

"Also, I think Calair originally said that the information looked similar to IMDb's, but wasn't word for word." Yes, there were some minor changes, but they were very minor - it was still clear that the one had been pasted from the other with small alterations, not enough to save it.
Superboy is covered by TRADEMARK, not copyright. Trademark law works very differently to copyright, and as such that case is irrelevant here. If you don't understand the difference, then you have a great deal to learn about IP law before you attempt to interpret it.
"IMDb's own copy states nothing about permission for non-commercial entities..." It doesn't specifically address non-commercials at any point, any more than it specifically mentions people called Ronald, but both are still covered by its restrictions. The only parts of that license that do not apply to non-commercials are the ones that are specifically limited to commercial entities. --Calair 15:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No, Superboy the character (not the name) is copyrighted. WB owns the trademark of "Superboy", the Siegels own the copyright of the character. That's what I was using as the example, and if you think otherwise then please see the Superboy page, or the Smallville tv series pages that has many sources that disagree with what you said. In any event it was an example to illustrate the point that what is on paper is what is there. You are again assuming that it's covered by it's restrictions, but if it doesn't state that, or at least imply that, then you cannot assume that they want permission for non-commercial entities as well, especially when they actually mention that they only require a hyperlink to their page when being used. Bignole 15:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
After some Googling, an account of the case here tells me that the Siegels do indeed own a copyright over Superboy - I'd misremembered the status of character copyrights, for which I apologise. But it does not support your assertion that that copyright covers only things specifically claimed by the Siegels (which is how a trademark would work). The Siegels own the copyright to Superboy because Jerry Siegel came up with the character (and DC tried to rip him off). If they own 'Smallville', it's because it was inspired by Superboy, making it a derivative work. Had the Siegels made a specific claim to Smallville during earlier proceedings, that question might have been resolved earlier... but it wouldn't necessarily have been decided in their favour. Anyway, this is getting way off-topic, so I really will bow out at this point. --Calair 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Elm street

John F Kennedy was killed while travelling on Elm street in Dallas --59.101.91.170 22:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying this is the reason for the name of the film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Elm Street is one of the 4 main streets in Potsdam, home to Clarkson. The movie was inspired by a student film project filmed on the street completed for one of the classes Craven taught there. People Under the Stairs was also Potsdam-based, originating from a true story that took place in what is now the Omicron Pi Omicron frat house. There are sources, but I'm lazy right now. Marimvibe 03:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

nightmare on Elm Street (Series)

Hey guys, this is about ANOES 1, is there an article around that is on the series as a hole, like there is for Friday The 13th?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Link at the bottom, in the template, but if you can't find it, you can go here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Freddy's Sweater

The article makes this claim:

"He based Krueger's appearance on another childhood experience in which he had been scared by a homeless man with a very distinctive red-and-green sweater; the same colored sweater he chose for his villain."

I don't know if this claim is true or not, but in Craven's original script, Freddy's sweater is red and yellow, not red and green. If Craven has actually stated that he got the idea for the sweater from a homeless man, perhaps the homeless man's sweater was actually red and yellow and someone misunderstood what Craven said and thought he was referring to the red and green sweater in the finished film?


I read or heard in an interview that the colors red and green were picked because the colors don't blend in at all and makes Freddy visually more unapealling (I only remember this fact b/c I thought it was stange, red and green are Christmas colors, maybe it has to do with shading). Alas, I do not have a source at the moment and do not remember where I got this info so it may take a while to track down. I was wondering if anyone else has heard this?

Someone mentioned that in the script the sweater was red and yellow which in my mind would look worse but maybe the costume dept thought otherwise. again I have no source on hand at the moment but was wondering if someone else has heard about this.Tsurettejr 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Freddy's glove

Hey, can we get a picture of Freddies glove, possibly from the scene where his daughter finds his torture room? It's almost as iconic as Freddy himself. Also I have no idea what it looks like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.190.109.54 (talk) 00:28, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

where they got the idea from

I'm not totally sure, but I think the movie was inspired when Wes Craven was in a coffee shop and he came a across a tiny newspaper article that reported the death of a eight to nine year old boy found dead in his bed with three distinctive cuts across his face, and there was no sign of forced entry anywhere in the house or any sign of a suicide attempt. Not sure but I think that's where the idea came from. Please give me your comments on this. 121.221.130.138 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.130.138 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 121.221.130.138 10:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard that too. But sadly I cannot guarantee that this is correct. 124.182.52.66 04:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cropsy seems to be the source in this case

"In a horror themed episode of the 90's Nickelodeon television series, Salute Your Shorts, the campers are haunted by an imitation of Freddy, named "Zeke the Plumber", and decide to re-create the villain in order to frighten another camper who is responsible for scaring everyone while boasting his own inability to be frightened." This seems to reference Cropsy from the Burning more.

23:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)~~Enda80

Need a reliable source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about cast

I'm holding a discussion at Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Cast in regards to the cast list for the film series as a whole (and the comics if need be).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia request(10\24\08)important subject

   Please make this a spoken article

Not Springwood

The introductory paragraphs to this article state that the film takes place in Springwood, Ohio. The original film was intended by Wes Craven to take place in or around Los Angeles, California, where it was actually filmed. This is why he made no attempt to obscure palm trees (sometimes incorrectly regarded as an error). There was also a deleted scene (or rather, portion of a scene) where Nancy mentions a book store on Ventura Blvd. The first sequel also seems to take place in Los Angeles...I can't think of a single small Midwestern town that has S&M bars.

It wasn't until Part 3, The Dream Warriors, that Freddy's location was retconned into "Springwood, Ohio." And while that may have then become the accepted setting for the previous films, I think it's incorrect to state that this film takes place there. Until the third film, Springwood was never mentioned...no one had given the location a name...but it was clearly L.A. in the first two films, and Craven has even stated that he set the original film in L.A.

Ironically, most of the articles for the sequels don't mention Springwood, despite the town's name being an invention of the sequels. Even the Dream Warriors article says nothing about it. Since that was where the name "Springwood" was established, wouldn't that be a more appropriate place to mention it, rather than this article?

98.215.122.27 (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving page to a suffix

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was  Not done. No consensus. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 08:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we move this page to A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984 film)? and have A Nightmare on Elm Street be a disambiguation? We have A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film) now. I am merely creating a discussion to use for reference for the future, I personally oppose the move (see below) ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose. A disambiguation page is uneeded since there would only be two links, we also do already have a hat note at the top of the page ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Primary association of name is with this film. Unlike "Halloween" or "Friday the 13th", which had to be disambiguated from the start with "(film)" and then subsequently changed to "(YEAR film)" because of sharing a title, this page is the primary association and should remain unambiguated. The same is already being down for Halloween II, which shares its title with Halloween II (2009 film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Image

The image we're using right now is too dark and appears too orange. To me, the Nightmare poster's colors appear that they should be more along these lines or maybe this brightness, however, I can't find one that looks quite right. Wescraven.com uses the home video art. Also, the source for the image we're currently using no longer contains that image. IMDb uses one closer to the links I provided before. This one is the best one I've found so far. $©@®©Ξ 03:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The poster is fine. Any source will work. The source for the image doesn't have to be the exact one in appearance, it just has to be one that shows it was published somewhere. The source can be changed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The source isn't really the problem, it's the tint. When you first view the article, you can really see, those aren't the original colors $©@®©Ξ 04:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's the problem. All those images you pulled up have been touched up to some degree. The actual poster itself does not have a solid blue blanket like you have. What appears on the actual poster is all black, with blue used to create contrast. When you touch up a poster jpg like most software does, it takes the blue and makes it the dominate color because it's easier to pull blue out than black. The poster we are currently using has the correct coloring, the only difference is that it's been brightened up because everything was hard to see. See this link for what the poster actually looks like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Use that one then. The one we have now has the bottom cut off $©@®©Ξ 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Nightmare_on_Elm_Street/Archive_1&oldid=1079330039"