Talk:I Love Toys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Toys Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Does anyone remember Smash 'Em Up Derby? -- Gerkinstock 21:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? --Flatluigi 03:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the I Love Toys page. -- Gerkinstock 21:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The List

I don't see a copyright of the list anywhere on VH1's website. -Jonathan D. Parshall 05:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Plus, the entire series has already aired, hasn't it? -- Gerkinstock 21:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not 100% familier with this aspect of copyright law, but I don't see how either one of those points allows us to distribute this list freely. To James, you do not need to put a copyright notice on a work in order for it to be protected. All works are copyrighted by default. To Gerkinstock, I also don't know how airing the entire series would cause VH1 to lose their copyright. Neither of these seem like legitimate excuses for us to distribute the list. I'm going to remove it again. Rhobite 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Because the entire list is public knowledge, having aired on the network multiple times. Is it a copyright issue to list academy awards winners or grammy awards winners? Or NBA Most Valuable Player awards recipients? Or plotlines to TV shows that have already aired (maybe some people don't yet know who shot J.R. Ewing, for example)? I don't see consistency in allowing the other info to be included at this site while not allowing the VH1 info (which can easily be accessed here by clicking on the History section, anyhow) -- Gerkinstock 00:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Just look at AFI 100 Years... series. Are we being sued over that? I'm returning the list as of now. Jonathan D. Parshall 11:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
No, we are not being sued over these lists but we still have a moral and legal duty to remove them. I am planning to remove the copyrighted content from the AFI lists as well. "Someone else did it" is not an excuse for submitting copyrighted text. Rhobite 05:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The list is published right here [1] and says "© 2006 MTV Networks." It is a subjective list and it is unquestionably copyrighted by VH1. Rhobite 05:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Quoting User:Michael Snow on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4: "Under US case law, e.g. Eckes v. Card Prices Update, lists of items that are created entirely or primarily as a result of editorial opinion are subject to copyright protection. This explicitly excludes lists which are derived solely from facts, statistics, or polling data, as only opinion based lists are considered by the courts to have the requisite creativity required for copyright protection under US law."

"Consequently, the inclusion of the entirety of such a list solely for the purposes of adding it to Wikipedia will generally constitute a copyright infringment. Excerpts of such lists can be used in Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use when they are associated with meaningful discussion of the contents of the list, but under typical circumstances, one should never reproduce the entirety of such a list." Rhobite 05:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

But it wasn't a creative list. It was made by the results of polling people, which as you the case you just posted states "This explicitly excludes lists which are derived solely from facts, statistics, or polling data". I would believe copyright applies to the show itself. I will not repost the list for a week to allow you to respond. -Jonathan D. Parshall 20:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
From this I get the impression that they were polling celebrities ("experts") and airing that. Do you have a clearer link to how they created the list? If it was a poll of random people, then I believe it wouldn't be copyright, if it's from a poll of celebrities or people who work for the show, then it is copyright. I also think the fact that they put a copyright notice on the page means little to nothing, since I think corporations add a copyright notice to absolutely everything, just in case. Adding a copyright notice to something you don't have copyright over means nothing, except a pain in other peoples' butts. Copyright Mak (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of copyright, AFAIK listing the top 3 would probably be fair use. Eivindt@c 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's most likely true, but certain people on this page were posting the entire list, which I don't think would fall under fair use. Mak (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with putting a list on this I Love Toys page Rhobite. If you think it breaks Copyright Laws, then go to VH1.COM and file a compliant and if it breaks the Copyright laws, then you can change it, but if it doesn't, then leave this page alone, because if it doesn't break Copyright laws and you keep changing this page then I will report you to Wikipedia and you will be banned from editing on this site. Thank you. Bye the way this list helps people find the toy they want to see on Wikipedia. I thought Lego's should have gotten number 1, i'am not a fan of hula hoop's. --Stco23 12:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The responsibility is on us to make sure that what we're distributing we're allowed to distribute. VH1 obviously believes that they hold copyright over this information, so getting in touch with them is unlikely to get us anywhere, unless they decided to get us rights. In which case, you as the person who wants to keep the full list on the page should get in touch with them. In my view, the responsibility for making sure the copyright status is legal is on the person who wants to include, not on the person who believes it to be copyrighted, and thus not allowed on the page. Mak (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope nobody gets rid this list because NOBODY WITH A DIAL-UP CONNECTION CAN GET THE LIST OF 110-101 ON VH1.COM, and by the way I put a time change on Friday's air date so you people know when Friday's air date was. I am getting sick of people getting rid of the list on this page, please leave it on there, because I don't want to go to the history pages and find the list that way. P.S. I have seen the list on other web sites so I doubt that this list violates Copyright Laws. Thank you.--Stco23 12:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have protected this page from editing because people unfortunately cannot resist adding the list to the article. It is a copyright violation, and no amount of discussion will change that fact. Rhobite 21:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing some case law on the merger doctrine and idea-expression divide, I'm pretty confident that the list is sufficiently creative to merit copyright (see CDN Inc. v. Kapes: "CDN does not, nor could it, claim protection for its idea of creating a wholesale price guide, but it can use the copyright laws to protect its idea of what those prices are. . . . Drawing this line preserves the balance between competition and protection: it allows CDN's competitors to create their own price guides and thus furthers competition, but protects CDN's creation, thus giving it an incentive to create such a guide."). Therefore, it would seem to me that if (as the article currently states) the choices were made by the viewership, the list probably isn't subject to copyright, but otherwise it probably is. I've looked over the site and can't seem to find anything either way. Anyone have links to clear evidence of how the stats were collected?

In any case, I don't think we'd want to list all of them. It would clutter the article too much. I'd stick with the top five or so, placed within the article text, just as an editorial decision. The full list, if deemed to be uncopyrightable (VH1's claims about its copyrightability are irrelevant), could perhaps be added to Wikisource. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Two questions:
  • How does this issue compare to the articles on GSN's and TV Guide's lists of "50 Greatest Game Shows"? The TV Guide article 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV Guide) has been up since April, 2006, and doesn't even have a Talk page as yet. The GSN article 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (GSN) has an extensive Talk page[[2]], but copyright issues aren't part of the discussion at all; they are arguing about whether it's reasonable to include mentions of the show in the articles about each respective game show, given that GSN is a corporate entity making money directly from some of the shows it names, etc. I don't mean that the absence of discussion of copyright in those articles means it's a non-issue; rather, there's the issue of consistency. Lawikitejana 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Am I right that there's no conflict in putting the links to each list? (e.g., Hour 1 [3]) Finding them on VH1's site takes an incredible amount of poking around. We would still be respecting any copyright issues, just speeding up the process of their answering the question.
Additionally, so far as "How did they arrive at the list?" this VH1 site [4] calls for users/viewers to vote for their favorites.
However, this site [5] (which appears to quote a press release) says, "The journey to rank the top 100 toys of all time consisted of online voting, sales, historical significance and longevity." So it sounds as if the voting and sales data were polling- and fact-based, while the final countdown involved some opinions and judgments.
Sources that cite a full segment of the list, or the whole list:
  • [6] - gives the top ten
  • [7] - apparently is the press release put out by VH1, and gives all but the top ten.
To me, those last two bits suggest copyright issues do not preclude our including the lists in this article. That wouldn't mean you couldn't still opt to keep it out on other grounds.Lawikitejana 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: Another aspect of copyright that no one has taken up is the issue of whether you're harming the copyright owner's ability to make money off the property. The reason price guides are copyrighted is that if one shares the information elsewhere, there's no longer any motivation for others to buy the guide. This is also why one part of fair use is the question of how much of the content you've reproduced. In the case of the "I Love ..." series, on the other hand, having the actual list doesn't substitute for watching the show; you can see that even VH1 thinks that, by the simple fact I already demonstrated above, that they made the entire 1-100 list available in the press releases. They know that people who watch the show do so because they enjoy the commentary and the chance to look at the items and reminisce vicariously with the guests, and those people will watch even after they know the list by heart. So it seems we have yet another reason why providing the list would not be a copyvio after all. This is not the same as saying that we should post the whole list, as it wouldn't necessarily be all that interesting. I simply think we could post far more of it than we have. Lawikitejana 12:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect page?

The page has been protected for the past five weeks, and no discussion has occurred for the past month. Can we unprotect the page now? Calwatch 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was done. Calwatch 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I unprotected it, sorry I didn't say anything here. Mak (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)