Talk:Daniela Cicarelli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
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.
Flag
Portal
 Daniela Cicarelli is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil:

Contents

[edit] Ban

The court reversed the ban. The article needs to be updated.

I updated it. Thanks.
-- DieselChrist 12:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniela or Daniella

The name is Daniela or Daniella? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.3.222.66 (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Marriage?

Was she ever legally married to Ronaldo? Newspapers have reported that the marriage couldn't take place on Feb. 14 because either Ronaldo needed to wait a year after his divorce or the couple needed to have announced their wedding 3 months in advance in France. The wedding was turned into an engagement party according to some reports. -Lychnismint 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is said that brazil fell out from the world cup mainly because she fucked with Ronaldo about three times every night, so he was way too tired to play effectively. A tabloid report said she was screaming so ecstatically all night that no people could sleep in the hotel. If this is true it would be significant, since brazil's recent big failure in soccer world cup is unprecedented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Link to controversial sex video

Links to the controversial sex video in question should not be added to the article, since the copyright status of such material is uncertain. Also Wikipedia is not a collection of links. --Oden 16:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the link is relevant. But Wikipedia is going to bow to Brazilian censorship?--Ssj4android 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Not while it blatantly violates copyright. --Yamla 05:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would the person who filmed it own the copyright?

How would that be possible?. He/she filmed it without their permission. So no the person who filmed does not own the copyright. --SkyWalker 09:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I filmed a flower but did not ask it for permission am I a criminal? Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 14:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup that is a criminal act, Because you did not take permission from the flower :D. --SkyWalker 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Linking ISN'T copyvio anyway even if the material is copyvio itself! How should it be? Linking is just pointing an arrow saying 'you can find it here' and this isn't copyvio. And after all this video isn't copyvio. Maybe it's illegal in another way (indeed I suppose it isn't, at least for the spanish gov. folks), but not copyvio. Check out the definition of copyright. --Henriquevicente 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a violation of Wikipedia policy. WP:SPAM, WP:EL, etc. And your addition of a link that you know may cause Wikipedia to be banned in Brazil is not appreciated. --Yamla 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I've read both the WP:SPAM and the WP:EL and I haven't see where it is a violation. Could you list some of the violation for us, please? About the Spamming I better say I can't agree once the link is relevant and appropriate in a way that it's anything related to the article. What about the interview's link (not displaying the other video)? Could you comment please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henriquevicente (talk • contribs) 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
First, you added a link to a blog. That is not appropriate (WP:EL, links to normally avoid, #11). Also, see WP:COPY#Linking_to_copyrighted_works which prohibits us linking to the video unless that video is distributed by the copyright holder (not the case here). --Yamla 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Links to blogs are to be avoided, ok. So I could just replace to the link of the video directly itself. And doesn't it fall under fair-use once it is relevant as a media proof of what made the YouTube be blocked by some backbones? Anyway, the secretary for health of a state has made a great parody of this video and published it on the Internet, so I'll put it on the page. Do you agree? By now I've put and my defense that the displaying of this parody is legal is that the it was made by a governmental agency and after all it falls on the fair-use as it is a parody. --Henriquevicente 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The video is restricted by two independent laws: copyright and personality rights. Miguel Temprano owns the copyright on the video (if he didn't sell the exclusive rights to the TV station), Renato Malzoni and Daniela Cicarelli both own personality rights on the video. Prominent people enjoy only limited personality rights especially when in public (freedom of press), and this sometimes can go as far as applying even if the person in question is on vacation. So in countries with the most liberal jurisdiction in such cases, it might be an interesting question whether photos/videos of public sex is still not restricted by exclusive personality rights of the protagonists. The Brazilian Court seems to have decided that this is at least not the case in Brazil. However, that issue is entirely unrelated to copyright. The distribution of the video on YouTube and all other sites was without doubt a copyright violation, since it was taken without permission from a TV show (as so many videos on YouTube). So no, we cannot link to the video, regardless of personality rights status. And in the countries where the video is additionally protected by personality rights, you would break the exclusive rights of three instead of only one persons, and would risk being sued three times, paying damages three times instead of only once. I hope I made clear the nature of independent and overlapping restrictions by several laws. --Rtc 13:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] just curious

But this couple is having sex on a public beach.. yet it is the photographer and YouTube who is to blame? I don't get it.

If you wanna have privacy you better don't fornicate at beach like a dog!