User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2016/Aug
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Wednesday Auugust 17, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Featuring special guest presentations on WikiVerse and Bringing Wikipedia to the Last Mile. We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants. We will also follow up on plans for recent (UN Women!) and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. Prep for our chapter elections next month in September (and add your candidacy!): Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Elections | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Bootleg vs copy
Hi Brad. Legal/copyright question. I tidied this up [1], but left in the original claim that it was a bootleg, almost certainly by someone with a ‘close connection to the article’. Further digging. Coco Star made this recording released on Greenlight Recordings USA under license of MCA/Universal. The vocals, but nothing else, were used in a 2000 remix by Fragma, which you can see Coco performing here.
She has subsequently claimed [2] that the 2000 recording is a bootleg, because it uses the sample from the 1996 recording. Here I think she is wrong, because a bootleg is an unauthorised recording, whereas the 1996 recording was certainly authorised, so the question is whether the copying was authorised. On that, this interview with Zenker, who made the copy, states that the legal nightmare was resolved because Coco had recorded the single again with Positiva in 1997, which was the same as Zenker's label. 'That was very good, so Kevin from Positiva A&R sorted things out with Coco and her management, and it was very quick to find a deal to use the vocals.'
Coco correctly points out that the vocals used were not the Positiva 1997 recording, but the Greenlight 1996 one. Fair enough, but who owns the vocal track? The singer, or Greenlight?
A further complication is that in the link above, Coco is clearly miming to the 2000 recording, so is there a legal principle that if you have done something like that, you have effectively endorsed the recording, and effectively waived any legal claim?
Sorry this is longer than I thought it would be, and quite complex legally. I am interested in cleaning up the article, that's all. Peter Damian (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for thinking of me. I must say that this article is fairly remote from what I thought your editing interests were. :)
- I don't think that either I, or Wikipedia editors collectively, should attempt to decide the merits of an ongoing legal dispute, especially since multiple countries' law may be involved. The best approach for the article is to report what reliable sources are stating the status of the recording is, with attribution, and/or to neutrally present the positions of the different parties to the dispute. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks - the trouble is that the dispute has been carried to the article, and that there are no reliable sources that I can find. I think I will just delete the material from unreliable sources, which are many. I have many editing interests! I was listening to the song then went to the Wikipedia article to check, and then found out all this stuff from the edit history. Peter Damian (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
"added further evidence the recording is an illegal bootleg - contact me for court judgement" [3] - presumably we can't accept this either, given a court judgment is a primary source? Peter Damian (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it is a "bootleg copy" based on a court decision, but it might be in order to say that a court has characterized it as such. A court judgment is a primary source, not enough to found an article upon because if there are no secondary sources there is no notability, but I think it would be accepted as a valid source for what the court itself said. Of course one would need to see the judgment, not just rely on an editor's paraphrase of the holding, and also might inquire whether it is on appeal, etc. Also, please note that at least in the U.S., "bootleg" is hardly a legal term. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Brad - good advice, and interesting about 'bootleg'. Peter Damian (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar
|
The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar | |
| For your display of common sense and cluefulness with your proposal in a case that has lacked both from the beginning. I also recognize the irony that the award named after you is one of the few major Barnstars you were never awarded. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC) |
Whole heartedly seconded. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith and Mr Ernie: Thanks very much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Something for you to consider
An attempt at a compromise proposal was made at this section by user Paine Ellsworth (see comment at 05:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC) that would alleviate the problem with incoming links that I talk about here, by redirecting New York to New York (state). This would make it easier to recognize wrong incoming links, without fully realizing the move request that was being discussed, since readers that type New York would nevertheless arrive to the article about the state, which is what the people opposing the move wanted.
As you didn't address this proposal in your comments as a panelist, could you please give it a thought and include a mention to it in the final closing statement, if you happen to agree on one with the rest of the panel? Thanks for your attention. Diego (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- This strikes me as an alternative proposal for a move, not something that really can be considered in evaluating whether there is consensus or not for the move that was proposed. (Speaking for myself personally, and not as a closer as a panelist, I'm not sure I see how this would be a helpful change, but my individual opinion isn't particularly relevant.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Then if it is not part of the potential move that was proposed, could it be discussed independently, without being subject to the moratorium over the previous move request? Given that the problem of incoming links was not satisfactorily solved, and you seem to indicate that this is orthogonal to the move discussion. Many of us won't feel satisfied until this concern can be addressed and other possibilities explored. Diego (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let me make sure I understand. The [[New York]] page would be, not the article about the State, not the article about the City, and not a disambiguation page, but a redirect? I sincerely don't see how that could possibly be helpful anyone, either in dealing with incoming links or in any other way. If someone meant to link to the city article but inadvertently linked to the state article, they'd now be linking to a redirect that would as a second step bring them to the state article? How does that help? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- It would make it much more likely that the editor notices the wrong link, realising that at the other side there is not an article about the city. There are several hints in the user interface of the browser that could show this information, the most obvious being that the tooltip gadget and the link creator in Visual Editor will show "(state)" in the large font of titles (both tools follow redirects when showing a snippet of the target article in a tooltip).
- It's not as good as having a disambiguation page as the target (the editor would then get a warning posted by a bot), but I believe it would help to enhance the visibility of the problem at its origin. Diego (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't it true that only a tiny percentage of active editors use the Visual Editor, Diego Moya? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let me make sure I understand. The [[New York]] page would be, not the article about the State, not the article about the City, and not a disambiguation page, but a redirect? I sincerely don't see how that could possibly be helpful anyone, either in dealing with incoming links or in any other way. If someone meant to link to the city article but inadvertently linked to the state article, they'd now be linking to a redirect that would as a second step bring them to the state article? How does that help? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Then if it is not part of the potential move that was proposed, could it be discussed independently, without being subject to the moratorium over the previous move request? Given that the problem of incoming links was not satisfactorily solved, and you seem to indicate that this is orthogonal to the move discussion. Many of us won't feel satisfied until this concern can be addressed and other possibilities explored. Diego (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)