Talk:Carlson Twins

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  They have sent an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. --JoanneB 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, the Carlson twins? Am confused. Sweetie Petie 21:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Their management, acting on their behalf. --JoanneB 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fair use of images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the twins' lawyers are going to send another angry email now.--Fallout boy 04:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have the image in question and could upload it now... Sweetie Petie 08:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, where did you get it? Angr (t • c) 09:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: There is. It's at Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Angr (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: The human body should be celebrated, not hidden away. Sweetie Petie 09:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New image 

message: 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)
replies: text: I can't believe you just said that! Sweetie Petie 09:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: No of course I won't bother with an AfD. Wikipedia is full of articles on nonnotable wannabes. Angr (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: i have an idea!

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:LIVING says to remove negative material. Nothing you removed was negative. User:Angr 07:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "...suggestions of incest" is negative.  --Rob 08:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I put the bit back in about the photo, so I hope that's ok. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LIVING]] 

message: A comment on developments as of lately, that's all – "Nothing to see here, folks — move along!" __meco 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  And then there were none&hellip; 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't know but I think the picture should stay. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Daydream believer2 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Consensus? 

message: 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs) 
: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)
thread_title:  Identical or Fraternal? 

message: Hi there, I have just gone through the article to add citations, create a new sub-section (re- career), and basically some minor editing (grammar, punctuation etc). In searching for material to cite, I found it difficult to source any current news about the twins. If anyone knows about what they are up to now, it might be useful to update the page with more recent information. What do other people think? Jihadcola (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Current news about the twins

message: Repeating my thoughts on the AfD talk page. This article relies almost exclusively on a primary source that is now dead. It also links to several sources that do not meet Wiki standards of reliability such as IMDB. They modeled for some major brands, as seen in photos via a google search, but I could not find one news article written about the Twins. There does not appear to be enough information to substantiate a page, which was my reason for the deletion nomination. I welcome discussion on the subject.
I would have cleaned up the article, but without any true sources to support the claims, this article would be reduced to a single sentence. "The Carlson Twins were professional models." They are no longer active.
Mechoise (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion nomination

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carlson Twins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120129223610/http://www.mostbeautifulman.com:80/misc/carlsontwins/bio.shtml to http://www.mostbeautifulman.com/misc/carlsontwins/bio.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419061319/http://fashionindie.com:80/nsfw-abercrombies-nude-carlson-twins-return/ to http://fashionindie.com/nsfw-abercrombies-nude-carlson-twins-return/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505101434/http://www.westsidetoday.com/s2-4838/kyle-carlson-s-top.html to http://www.westsidetoday.com/s2-4838/kyle-carlson-s-top.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carlson Twins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824012131/http://coursesite.uhcl.edu/hsh/Donnelly/classes/PSYC%205831/Crossing%20the%20Borders.doc to http://coursesite.uhcl.edu/hsh/donnelly/classes/psyc%205831/crossing%20the%20borders.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified