Talk:Busby Berkeley

message: :Image:Footlight.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Footlight.jpg

message: What does the phrase " also the 1932 Universal programmer Night World" mean? I presume a programmer is a film or a movie? I am confused.--Filll (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the wikilink, we learn that a 'programmer' is a B Movie. I agree, poor wording. David Spector (user/talk) 17:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording problem 

message: The article credits Berkeley correctly with geometric patterns, both dancing and static, but omits the other key element, the incredible and rarely equaled set architecture. Berkeley put his many dancers on enormous sets, frequently giant spiral staircases, and giant sets that looked like cakes, clocks, or pure fantasies. Were these one-time-use architectural marvels constructed by Berkeley himself? Did he design them? Were they designed by someone else? We'll never know, if our source is Wikipedia. And what happened to the sets after they were used in filming? David Spector (user/talk) 17:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing: Architecture 

message: Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers]] priority assessment

message: The early life section rather coyly says "he was born to actress Gertrude Berkeley" but makes no mention of his father or her marital status. Does this mean he was illegitimate, do we know who his father was? Probably prurient interest but I'd like to know, the wording here is a little vague.Gymnophoria (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life / his father 

message: This Busby Berkeley is wikilinked from the musical Present Arms, where the name seems to refer to an actor/singer of the same name, who sang You Took Advantage of Me.  Was this Busby Berkeley also a singer, or were there two entertainers working in New York City in the late Twenties with the same unusual name?  Nothing else in his bio suggests that he sang or acted... --Eliyahu S Talk 20:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singer?!! 

message: User Light show removed a non-free publicity head shot of Berkeley from the infobox and replaced it with a publicity picture of Berkeley and his family, which he contends is a free image.  I have reverted the change, because publicity pictures are, for Wikipedia's purposes, presumed to be copyrighted, and therefore must be dealt with as a non-free image. Light show's rationale is that there is no copyright marking on the picture, but, prior to 1978 when the copyright laws changed and anything that was published was presumed to be copyrighted, copyright notices for images were allowed to appear on the back of the picture, so the lack of a notice on the image itself is not a controlling factor.Given that both images are non-free, the headshot is obvious a preferable lede image, which is why I reverted. BMK (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What you've effectively said above is that Wikipedia ignores U.S. copyright law, since the law is the opposite of much of what you wrote. This misconception is understandable if you're from Europe. As one Commons admin explained: Copyright registration doesn't exist in Europe and there is no such thing as "renewing" a copyright. A copyright notice has no legal meaning (except for old Polish photos.) In the U.S., the laws until 1989 were almost opposites, as you can see on this simple chart. As for notices on the back, they were extremely rare and usually rubber stamped, and few if any of those stamped ones were ever registered. The only reason that reverse-side images are demanded by some European WP editors is that they simply can't believe the concept that a post-1923 photo can be public domain. --Light show (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, your interpretation here is extremely bizarre, and entirely wrong.  Wikipedia's policy is that something is copyrighted unless it can be shown to not be'.  As a private website, it is allowed to set terms of use which are more restrictive than normal fair use regimes, and it has done so.  (I wish it had not, but that is neither here nor there).  The WMF could, if it wanted to, forbid editors to use even a non-copyrighted work if it wanted to - there is no freedom on speech here, no right for intellectual freedom.  That the WMF doesn't do so does not mean that they don't have the power or authority to make whatever restrictions it damn well pleases.  (THey'd drive away editors, but, again, that's not relevant to this discussion.)In the case of images, Wikipedia requires you to prove that an image is not copyrighted, and does not accept the assumption that everything is not copyrighted unless positively labelled as such - exactly the opposite.  That you wish it to be otherwise is obvious, but your wishes, and the assumptions and deductions of academics regarding publicity photos, don't mean anything here - it's Wikipedia 'policy' that's controlling. BMK (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, whoever told you that European stuff may be right, but it has nothing to do with this.  You clearly have never read any version of the copyright laws in your life, because the marking on the back is specifically spelled out there. BMK (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede image 

message: Substituted at 10:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment