Talk:Carlson Twins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Fair use of images
Please do not re-add the picture of these twins that I just removed. The fair use rationale is not valid, and the copyright owners have complained about it via an email to the office. I don't care about the content of the picture, the nudity is fine with me (I saw that there was an earlier discussion in the edit summaries about that) - but this is not the way fair use should be interpreted. The article is not a discussion of Bruce Weber's work, the picture is there to illustrate the boys. --JoanneB 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:V anyone?--BradPatrick 20:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- The fair use claim is far more valid here than it is at either Bruce Weber (photographer) or List of photographers known for portraying males erotically. The image depicts the subjects of the article, the most basic fair use of a copyrighted image. Any photograph of his could illustrate Bruce Weber's work, but only a picture of "the boys" (as you so demeaningly refer to these 27-year-old men) can illustrate an article about them. If the copyright owners have complained about the use of this image, it should be deleted from Wikipedia altogether, not removed from the one article where it makes most sense, while being left in two articles where its presence is much less justified. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've just notice the image has been removed from List of photographers known for portraying males erotically. Still, the image is more appropriate here than at Bruce Weber (photographer). Angr (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry, the use of 'boys' was in no way meant demeaningly. I'm of about the same age, and am still in a transition phase of seeing people of my own age as 'boys or guys and girls' rather than 'men and women'. A language issue too, I guess. My apologies. --JoanneB 20:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- More on topic: it's not a question of 'hey we have this image on WP, where shall we put it'. Fair use should be the reasoning why a certain picture is the best and legal option for the article, not what article fits best with a certain picture. --JoanneB 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, but the fact is any photograph of the Carlson twins is going to be copyrighted unless some Wikipedian happens to encounter them in person and takes his own picture of them and releases it into the public domain or under the GFDL. Until that happens, if we want to illustrate this article at all, it has to be with a fair-use image. In order to keep the number of fair-use images to a minimum, it only makes sense to use the same image here as at Bruce Weber (photographer) (assuming it makes sense to have the image there at all). Angr (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- the copyright owners have complained about it via an email to the office - What does that mean? Sweetie Petie 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- They have sent an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. --JoanneB 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Who, the Carlson twins? Am confused. Sweetie Petie 21:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Their management, acting on their behalf. --JoanneB 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the copyright be held by Bruce Weber, the photographer, not the twins? If so would the twins themselves hold any control over the images? Doc 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've been wondering about the same thing, but there are instances where the twins, or even a third party could hold the copyright. I don't think it's possible to tell without knowing what agreements were made when the picture was taken. However, I do believe that regardless of the validity of the complaint, the fair use rationale here was inapplicable. I discussed this with various people last night, on IRC, and talked about it with BradPatrick, since American copyright law is not my specialty... Anyway, Brad said the picture should go and I trust his judgement. --JoanneB 07:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I see it's been deleted altogether now, so further discussion here is moot. But I do think Wikipedia as a whole may need to re-examine the issue of fair use images, because frankly, if that image isn't fair use here, then no image is fair use in any article, and we may as well delete the entire contents of Category:Fair use images. (This would not necessarily be a bad thing; German Wikipedia for example gets along just fine without any fair use images.) Angr (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, Brad deleted it last night. Going without fair use images might not be such a bad idea, since the whole concept of fair use proves to be pretty tricky. --JoanneB 19:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well I think that's a discussion for another place and time. The question now is... who is going to track the Carlson Twins down, strip them naked and photograph them for Wikipedia??? Sweetie Petie 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, Brad deleted it last night. Going without fair use images might not be such a bad idea, since the whole concept of fair use proves to be pretty tricky. --JoanneB 19:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I see it's been deleted altogether now, so further discussion here is moot. But I do think Wikipedia as a whole may need to re-examine the issue of fair use images, because frankly, if that image isn't fair use here, then no image is fair use in any article, and we may as well delete the entire contents of Category:Fair use images. (This would not necessarily be a bad thing; German Wikipedia for example gets along just fine without any fair use images.) Angr (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've been wondering about the same thing, but there are instances where the twins, or even a third party could hold the copyright. I don't think it's possible to tell without knowing what agreements were made when the picture was taken. However, I do believe that regardless of the validity of the complaint, the fair use rationale here was inapplicable. I discussed this with various people last night, on IRC, and talked about it with BradPatrick, since American copyright law is not my specialty... Anyway, Brad said the picture should go and I trust his judgement. --JoanneB 07:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the copyright be held by Bruce Weber, the photographer, not the twins? If so would the twins themselves hold any control over the images? Doc 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Their management, acting on their behalf. --JoanneB 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Who, the Carlson twins? Am confused. Sweetie Petie 21:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- They have sent an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. --JoanneB 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- the copyright owners have complained about it via an email to the office - What does that mean? Sweetie Petie 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, but the fact is any photograph of the Carlson twins is going to be copyrighted unless some Wikipedian happens to encounter them in person and takes his own picture of them and releases it into the public domain or under the GFDL. Until that happens, if we want to illustrate this article at all, it has to be with a fair-use image. In order to keep the number of fair-use images to a minimum, it only makes sense to use the same image here as at Bruce Weber (photographer) (assuming it makes sense to have the image there at all). Angr (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Another place, definitely, but not necessarily another time. I'd bring the issue up right now if I knew the most appropriate place to start the discussion. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New image
Does anyone else agree that Image:Carlson-nude3.jpg doesn't look like a magazine cover? It looks like a photograph of a photograph. Sweetie Petie 09:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, although it's possible the magazine cover was that way. I also notice the source is somewhat vague. Is "Quarterly Special Edition" the name of a magazine? Angr (t • c) 10:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't see that bit. That'll be the A&F Quarterly. Very unlikely that they were nude on a cover. I don't think that's an Abercrombie and Fitch picture anyway. I have an A&F Quarterly with Kyle and Lane on the cover but it's not great. Sweetie Petie 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the twins' lawyers are going to send another angry email now.--Fallout boy 04:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- At the moment, the photo tagged incorrectly as a magazine cover. That should be changed, and the original source of the photo properly cited. If we can do that, the lawyers won't have a leg to stand on, as using this very image, which is directly discussed in the article, falls clearly under fair use and we don't have to have anyone's permission. With the previous image it wasn't so clear as that image was not discussed in particular, but this one is. Angr (t • c) 07:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to have a proper scan of the image though, rather than one that looks like a photograph of a photograph? I don't like it the way it is now. Sweetie Petie 08:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. Maybe you could leave a note at User talk:Qrc2006 and ask. Angr (t • c) 08:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have the image in question and could upload it now... Sweetie Petie 08:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, where did you get it? Angr (t • c) 09:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I found it just now on the internet but I have a print of it at home that I probably got off eBay! Sweetie Petie 09:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, where did you get it? Angr (t • c) 09:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have the image in question and could upload it now... Sweetie Petie 08:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. Maybe you could leave a note at User talk:Qrc2006 and ask. Angr (t • c) 08:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to have a proper scan of the image though, rather than one that looks like a photograph of a photograph? I don't like it the way it is now. Sweetie Petie 08:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- At the moment, the photo tagged incorrectly as a magazine cover. That should be changed, and the original source of the photo properly cited. If we can do that, the lawyers won't have a leg to stand on, as using this very image, which is directly discussed in the article, falls clearly under fair use and we don't have to have anyone's permission. With the previous image it wasn't so clear as that image was not discussed in particular, but this one is. Angr (t • c) 07:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the twins' lawyers are going to send another angry email now.--Fallout boy 04:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't see that bit. That'll be the A&F Quarterly. Very unlikely that they were nude on a cover. I don't think that's an Abercrombie and Fitch picture anyway. I have an A&F Quarterly with Kyle and Lane on the cover but it's not great. Sweetie Petie 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool, but there's a new speedy criterion that images labeled {{Non-free fair use in}} also have to have a detailed rationale as to why they're fair use on the image description page. So please add that.. just say it's fair use because this was a particularly significant photograph of them that's explicitly discussed in the article. Also the fair use claim would be stronger if you uploaded a lower-resolution version (maybe around 350x500). You don't have to rename the image; just click "upload a new version of this file" and then say yes when it asks you if you want to delete the old version. Also, be sure to give the source (the URL of the web page you uploaded it from), and preferably the photographer's name if you know it (Is it Bruce Weber? Did you find it on his website?). Angr (t • c) 11:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Will do... I wasn't sure what I should say so thanks for that. I'm sure it's a Bruce Weber photo, I found it on the website in the external links section, the photo gallery one. Sweetie Petie 11:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the dicks need to go. I don't care what anyone says, there should be some kind of warning. Djarnum1
- There is. It's at Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Angr (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- In my view, it'd be good to relax & remember that it's just a penis, nothing that should, intrinsically, upset anyone.--Ssbohio 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- The human body should be celebrated, not hidden away. Sweetie Petie 09:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It might be helpful if the ‘management’ of the ‘boys’ will just let you know a few details: As mentioned above copyright laws can be pretty complicated. You can be assured that the images we are talking about are not free for any publication on the Internet. Neither on Wikipedia nor any place else. You may also be assured that we, the management, as the twins themselves love the Wikipedia project – we just think that copyright violations – and also posting frontal nudity – are jeopardizing the entire Wikipedia Project. Wikipedia is a global project – and frontal nudity is a problem for many people out there. And yes, it is also a problem for the Twins seeing their own penises posted on the web. And we hope that everybody here will respect that.Taufkirchen 17:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- The images are posted here under a claim of fair use, which means we don't need anyone's permission. Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not censored, and the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer warns that potentially offensive images may be found here. If the twins don't like seeing their own penises posted on the web, they shouldn't have posed for the picture. And making legal threats can get you blocked from Wikipedia. Angr (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Two points:
-
- What is the source of the controversy over whether this image is fair use? It depicts the subjects of the article engaged in the precise activity for which they became notable in the first place. Attornies retained to protect copyright issue cease & desist notices every time they see a copyrighted image/text/musical performance. It's a matter of rote, not an indication that they have weighed the merits & decided this use of the image doesn't constitute fair use. They most likely send out letters like that everyday on behalf of their clients. I'd caution against attaching too much credence to the receipt of such a complaint.
-
- As far as frontal nudity on Wikipedia goes, the policy that Wikipedia is not censored has been set by consensus. If you think the policy should change, then initiate a discussion on its talk page, and, if a consensus can be reached that the change should be made, then the change will be made. Until then, we all must respect the consensus of the group, as this is a group project.--Ssbohio 21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use images (again)
As requested in an email to the Wikimedia Foundation, I've deleted the fair use image that was in this article. Though Wikipedia has a policy of not censoring content or images, serious concerns about copyright have been raised. Please do not replace this without clearance from the foundation's legal team. Jude (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- But it was fair use :( Sweetie Petie 12:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- From my take on events, it seems like a misunderstanding occurs in how copyrighted materials are treated under U.S. law. There is an established fair use exemption to normal copyright protections, as contained in 17 USC § 107. For example, I can include a photo illustrative of the subject I am discussing, without needing the permission of the copyright holder. The particular fair use exemptions in this case would be:
- The use of the image is for non-profit educational purposes, with no commercial gain.
- The image has already been extensively published, to the extent that inclusion in an encyclopedia article has no effect on any right of first use or right not to publish asserted by its copyright holder(s).
- The image represents a modest and insubstantial portion of an entire portfolio of similar works featuring the same subject, and is merely an illustrative element in an article that draws its infomation primarily from other sources. Thus, it is neither a substantial portion of the original body of work, nor is it a substantial portion of the derivative work.
- The image's inclusion in an encyclopedia article represents an infinitessimal diminution of its value, if any diminution has occurred at all.
- This is, as I understand the law, a fair use of the image. I understand that the Foundation's view is different, and I'd like to be able to get some perspective on this. Would someone be willing to explain this use of the image is seen as a copyright infringement? --Ssbohio 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- From my take on events, it seems like a misunderstanding occurs in how copyrighted materials are treated under U.S. law. There is an established fair use exemption to normal copyright protections, as contained in 17 USC § 107. For example, I can include a photo illustrative of the subject I am discussing, without needing the permission of the copyright holder. The particular fair use exemptions in this case would be:
- Given that the copyright owner has made complaint directly to the Foundation, the appropriate place to raise questions about the use of these images is with the Foundation's legal counsel, Brad Patrick. You can find him at User:BradPatrick. Brad deleted several of the Carlson twin's images himself, noting that the fair use argument was not acceptible. Given that he is not only an attorney, but is counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, until he indicates that these images can be used over the objection of the copyright owner, they should not be included, and will be handled under the WP:OFFICE policy if necessary. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have requested that Brad Patrick address this issue directly. __meco 07:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Essjay pretty much nailed it. I implore you and anyone else who is interested in contributing to Wikipedia not to simply exacerbate the enormous headaches copyrighted images cause and to try to work with photographers and other copyright holders to release images for use on Commons appropriately. This is a free culture project, not a fair use warehouse. N.B. - any particular attention to this issue has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the image - copyvio is copyvio. Finally, I have nothing to say one way or another about notability or other issues related to this page. I only got involved because of the copyright issue. --BradPatrick 02:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- As I am somewhat bewildered with regards to which principles are applied in this particular case, I have raised the question of Should Fair Use only be applied when copyright-holder doesn't object? on the Wikipedia:Fair use talk page. __meco 00:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Deletion?
I think we might as well delete the article. They're only known for their physical appearance and are otherwise nonnotable. With no image, there's nothing left to say about these Brewer twin wannabes. Angr (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I can't believe you just said that! Sweetie Petie 09:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are free to bring on an AfD if you think that would serve a (any) purpose. I expect though that many would consider that frivolous. __meco 09:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article appears to me to have a link to a site with lots of pictures of them at the bottom of it. I don't think it's the end of the world. --Fastfission 02:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- At any rate, I have written up a document at User:Angr/Carlson summarizing the history of the use of images in this article and explaining why I feel that the most recent image was deleted as a result of an apparent demand on the part of the Carlson Twins themselves (or their representatives), not because the image violated either Wikipedia's fair-use policy or U.S. copyright law. User:Angr 08:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Free image
I am pleased to announce the addition of a free image to this page. I contacted the source of the original complaint, and simply asked if we could get a free image to add. The twins were kind enough to allow the image on this page to be added to Commons and Wikipedia; I'm very happy we could reach a resolution to this problem. Thanks again to all the adoring fans of the Carlsons who have been concerned about the lack of an image. Enjoy.--BradPatrick 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well that's just peachy, but it doesn't actually end any controversy. User:Angr 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- What's more, the nature of the current image would never have made them famous. Buff, yes, but dime a dozen. The previous images that were disputed were the only thing that made their name known, whether they like it or not. It was what Bruce Weber made of their youth, provocative lighting and nude poses. They would not even be notable or worthy of inclusion here without the early photo shoots by Bruce Weber. Doc 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do we know which one is which in the picture? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I had the same question myself, and no, I sure don't. I will ask tomorrow and report back.--BradPatrick 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do we know which one is which in the picture? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- What's more, the nature of the current image would never have made them famous. Buff, yes, but dime a dozen. The previous images that were disputed were the only thing that made their name known, whether they like it or not. It was what Bruce Weber made of their youth, provocative lighting and nude poses. They would not even be notable or worthy of inclusion here without the early photo shoots by Bruce Weber. Doc 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Kyle is on the left wearing the white shirt, Lane on the right wearing the blue one.--taufkirchen
- I just wanted to make sure their names were in the right order in the photo caption :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kyle is on the left wearing the white shirt, Lane on the right wearing the blue one.--taufkirchen
-
-
-
- I actually don't think we have a reason to rejoice over this free picture which I consider more of a snuff. I think a metaphor to illustrate this would be having an image of a bloated mid-seventies Elvis Presley to illustrate an article about his hip-swinging rock'n'roll 1950s impact on teenage culture. __meco 23:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing says we have to keep this picture. If there's consensus the article is better with no picture at all than with this one, we can remove it. User:Angr 05:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- That I propose. __meco 08:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Removing a free image, which is of good quality, and performs the role the main bio pic is supposed to, would simply make no sense. The new image should definately stay. Even if you could (somehow) use the old image, the new one shouldn't be removed. --Rob 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The key word there is "good quality". If the editors of this page decide the current image isn't of good enough quality, and that the article is better off with no image at all than with this one, we're under no obligation to use it just because it's free. User:Angr 07:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are you actually arguing the free image is not of good enough quality, or are just making a point, that we don't have to use every free image in existance, which goes without saying. --Rob 09:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing for or against removing the free image, just pointing out that we're not obligated to keep it since others (Doc, Meco) have expressed objections to it. I would not be opposed to removing it, but I also don't particularly mind if it's kept. I'm completely neutral on the question of whether it's better than no image at all. User:Angr 22:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are you actually arguing the free image is not of good enough quality, or are just making a point, that we don't have to use every free image in existance, which goes without saying. --Rob 09:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The key word there is "good quality". If the editors of this page decide the current image isn't of good enough quality, and that the article is better off with no image at all than with this one, we're under no obligation to use it just because it's free. User:Angr 07:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Removing a free image, which is of good quality, and performs the role the main bio pic is supposed to, would simply make no sense. The new image should definately stay. Even if you could (somehow) use the old image, the new one shouldn't be removed. --Rob 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- That I propose. __meco 08:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing says we have to keep this picture. If there's consensus the article is better with no picture at all than with this one, we can remove it. User:Angr 05:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] i have an idea!
is anyone good at drawing or at making images on photoshop from scratch, someone could make a piece of artwork and depict the controvertial nearly touching penis picture i can provide the original picture for inspiration? we could get around the copyright issue this way. any thoughts anyone? this way we'll have the copyright/release it to the public domain or whatnot or have it under GNI free use or whatever Qrc2006 02:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that will work at all. If it's clearly derivative of the original, it'll still be a copyvio. If it's not clearly derivative of the original, it'll be kinda pointless. User:Angr 05:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Since no one, not even User:BradPatrick, has stated why the image under discussion would be an exception to the doctrine of fair use, then wouldn't the assertion that it is a WP:copyvio be without foundation? Fair use, by definition, is not a copyvio, and this image's use in this article has a clear claim to fair use. In my view, the only clearly applicable policy supporting the deletion of the image is WP:OFFICE, and no one has invoked that option.--Ssbohio 14:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think it was a de-facto WP:OFFICE decision, even if the term wasn't used. The image was deleted because the twins contacted the Foundation and told them to take it down or risk a lawsuit. And since an image isn't worth risking a lawsuit over, they took it down. Fair-use means the copyright holder doesn't need to be asked, but it doesn't mean defying the copyright holder's demand to remove copyrighted material, unless you're willing to go to court about it. And they weren't. User:Angr 14:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Do you know: was a lawsuit specifically threatened, or was the Foundation simply asked to remove the image? I hadn't heard of a lawsuit threat previously, and I want to be clear about what we know & what we suppose. While by my reading of copyright law, an infringement suit would likely lose on its merits, I can see the logic of the Foundation's wanting to duck a potentially costly round of litigation. That said, it's also important to keep in mind that a copyvio is a copyvio, and nothing but a copyvio should be identified as such. Also, I don't think WP:OFFICE is the kind of policy that can be applied on a de facto basis. Absent an invocation of the policy by one empowered to invoke it, it's just not WP:OFFICE. Part of me will always wish that we had stood up for the right to fair use, despite the practicality of capitulation. --Ssbohio 02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know whether a lawsuit was specifically threatened, but ultimately it doesn't really matter. If the copyright holder of some material comes to and politely asks you to remove it, it's pretty clear what their next step is likely to be if you say no. You say "only a copyvio should be identified as such", but there are different interpretations of what fair use means. Some people say "If it's fair use, it isn't a copyvio." Other people say "Fair use is just a copyvio you're allowed to get away with." User:Angr 07:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Do you know: was a lawsuit specifically threatened, or was the Foundation simply asked to remove the image? I hadn't heard of a lawsuit threat previously, and I want to be clear about what we know & what we suppose. While by my reading of copyright law, an infringement suit would likely lose on its merits, I can see the logic of the Foundation's wanting to duck a potentially costly round of litigation. That said, it's also important to keep in mind that a copyvio is a copyvio, and nothing but a copyvio should be identified as such. Also, I don't think WP:OFFICE is the kind of policy that can be applied on a de facto basis. Absent an invocation of the policy by one empowered to invoke it, it's just not WP:OFFICE. Part of me will always wish that we had stood up for the right to fair use, despite the practicality of capitulation. --Ssbohio 02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think it was a de-facto WP:OFFICE decision, even if the term wasn't used. The image was deleted because the twins contacted the Foundation and told them to take it down or risk a lawsuit. And since an image isn't worth risking a lawsuit over, they took it down. Fair-use means the copyright holder doesn't need to be asked, but it doesn't mean defying the copyright holder's demand to remove copyrighted material, unless you're willing to go to court about it. And they weren't. User:Angr 14:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Since no one, not even User:BradPatrick, has stated why the image under discussion would be an exception to the doctrine of fair use, then wouldn't the assertion that it is a WP:copyvio be without foundation? Fair use, by definition, is not a copyvio, and this image's use in this article has a clear claim to fair use. In my view, the only clearly applicable policy supporting the deletion of the image is WP:OFFICE, and no one has invoked that option.--Ssbohio 14:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:LIVING
Per WP:LIVING "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page"
Please don't respond by saying what I removed was true information, or "well known". Rather, just follow policy, and add appropriate citations, when you add back the content. I have no interest or concern with whether the material is in the article *if* it is fully cited per policy. That means sources, not just for obvious things, like what image was published where, but how controversial it is, and what the reaction to them, and by them, has been. For instance, a newspaper story about legal action would be rather useful. --Rob 03:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- WP:LIVING says to remove negative material. Nothing you removed was negative. User:Angr 07:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- "...suggestions of incest" is negative. --Rob 08:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Except that the image itself provided the substantive proof to the claim, unless some would argue that characterizing an image of two twins, nude and holding each other, apparently tenderly, as suggesting incest, lacks foundation. __meco 08:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- From the description of the image, I fully agree with the conclusions you've come to in your original research. Now, I suggest somebody go find reliable sources which say the same thing and put back the material, while citing sources appropriately. Until then, the negative unsourced claims, can't be used. --Rob 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- It would be negative to accuse the twins of actually committing incest. To say they appeared in photographs suggestive of incest isn't. And anyway, you removed far more than just the bit about "suggestions of incest". User:Angr 09:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I put the bit back in about the photo, so I hope that's ok. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- It would be negative to accuse the twins of actually committing incest. To say they appeared in photographs suggestive of incest isn't. And anyway, you removed far more than just the bit about "suggestions of incest". User:Angr 09:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- From the description of the image, I fully agree with the conclusions you've come to in your original research. Now, I suggest somebody go find reliable sources which say the same thing and put back the material, while citing sources appropriately. Until then, the negative unsourced claims, can't be used. --Rob 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Except that the image itself provided the substantive proof to the claim, unless some would argue that characterizing an image of two twins, nude and holding each other, apparently tenderly, as suggesting incest, lacks foundation. __meco 08:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- "...suggestions of incest" is negative. --Rob 08:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] And then there were none…
A comment on developments as of lately, that's all – "Nothing to see here, folks — move along!" __meco 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above comment was on the state of the article at one specific point in edit history (and may not make much sense if not seen in that context). __meco 09:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consensus?
Is there now consensus that having the current picture is better than having none at all? Or are there people who would rather the article had no picture at all than having this one? I don't find the comments made above entirely clear. User:Angr 14:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know but I think the picture should stay. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Daydream believer2 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but under protest as it is a poor substitute at best. The twins would never have become known, and most likely have never been notable enough for these pages without the nude photographs by Bruce Weber. In my opinion, the earlier photo just from the waist up would be better than this very hard photo. The magic of the lighting and the posing by Weber sold a look that just does not exist in this photo. Doc 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Daydream believer2 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Identical or Fraternal?
Are they identical twins? They don't look like it to me. In fact, they joke about how different they look. Have the Carlsons ever explicitly stated one way or the other?
- Most identical twins don't look totally identical. I think they look too similar to be from two separate eggs. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
