Talk:These Arms Are Snakes

message: This page reads more like a (poorly written) puff piece than an encyclopedia entry.  Unfortunately, I don't know enough about them to fix it, so it'd be appreciated if somebody else could come to the rescue.--RevTarthpeigust 21:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi there! Could you please help me understand your rationale behind this edit summary? Cheers, Fezmar9 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Fezmar9: The image is not non-free; it is free. Copyright is not easy to simply explain, but here goes. The EP cover has just pink background, simple font for bands' names, and signature font (not handwritten) for the EP title. It fails to be original and innovative enough to be copyrightable with just common elements inserted, especially in the United States. If the band or label were British, then it would have been copyrightable (see :commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos). But it's American; you can also see examples at :commons:COM:TOO. --George Ho (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Almost forgot: WP:Image use policy#Content might apply to free and non-free images. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia shouldn't really be the one to be determining whether something is or is able to be copyrighted. Unless explicitly stated elsewhere, it should just be assumed that it is covered by copyright. Legality aside, I really don't see how adding a pink square to this article really enhances the reader's understanding of the band. Per the link you provided, "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." How does this nondescript cover increase someone's understanding of These Arms Are Snakes? Fezmar9 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the EP page is tagged for deletion, so I added the image in the parent article in case that the EP page is deleted. Having it there helps readers recognize one of the band's releases. Really, how is the image copyrightable in the US? It consists of just simple background and simple fonts. No additions or anything to make the image original enough. Look at :File:Nirvana album cover.svg; it's considered free to use. George Ho (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

text:  I could not add back the image per WP:3RR, Fezmar, but I would like your approval of its presence there. As for the rest of track listing, what about AllMusic and iTunes? George Ho (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No track listing should ever be found in an artist's Wikipedia history section. Regardless of what source you find and independent of the PROD, this is not the place for that kind of information——it exclusively belongs on an album article. Even if I concede to adding the plain pink square and even if it does technically maybe fall under fair use, another editor is just going to remove it down the road because it objectively adds nothing to the article nor does it better the reader's understanding of the subject. It's not like it's an iconic cover of a famous album or a controversial cover that sparked debate or anything, it's just a nondescript cover of a little-known EP that can't even pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I do not understand how you can simultaneously make the arguments: (a) this image is plain and unremarkable and (b) it's necessary to a reader's understanding of These Arms Are Snakes. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NFCC does not apply to free images, Fez. Neither does WP:NFC nor fair use. Here are copyright law of the United States and free content. We can insert free images anywhere we want to put; of course, some editors wants certain images removed as unnecessary and insignificant. As for the EP, it's non-notable, so (as said before) I tagged it for deletion. I just wanted to include the image for preservation and awareness. --George Ho (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Robert, is this image eligible or ineligible for copyright in the US and worldwide? This image is American because the band and the EP are American. Also, does including the image in the article help readers understand the band per WP:IUP#Content? Also, can I include tracks of an EP in the band article? --George Ho (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  pings require a new signature to be added within a comment to work. It's a horrible bug but it's easily worked around. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Erpert and Robert, the image is ineligible for copyright. Look at threshold of originality and :commons:COM:TOO. Also, look at :File:Nirvana album cover.svg and USC Title 17, Ch 1, Sect. 2 and 13. Ask Masem. --George Ho (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Well, I'm on the fence now, so I will relist this at 3O. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Almost forgot, Erpert: eligibility. George Ho (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Sorry for late reply, Keithbob. The stand-alone EP article is now deleted because I proposed it without AFD discussion. As for #3, I meant list of tracks, not audio samples. --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination would be to say no list of tracks, but I'd suggest  this forum, for a more informed answer.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  17:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from {{u|George Ho}}'s talk page 

message: A third opinion has been requested about These Arms Are Snakes.  The question appears to have to do with copyright or non-free content.  However, please state concisely what the question is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert, is this image eligible or ineligible for copyright in the US and worldwide? This image is American because the band and the EP are American. Also, does including the image in the article help readers understand the band per WP:IUP#Content? Also, can I include tracks of an EP in the band article? --George Ho (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  pings require a new signature to be added within a comment to work. It's a horrible bug but it's easily worked around. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Erpert and Robert, the image is ineligible for copyright. Look at threshold of originality and :commons:COM:TOO. Also, look at :File:Nirvana album cover.svg and USC Title 17, Ch 1, Sect. 2 and 13. Ask Masem. --George Ho (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Well, I'm on the fence now, so I will relist this at 3O. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Almost forgot, Erpert: eligibility. George Ho (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Sorry for late reply, Keithbob. The stand-alone EP article is now deleted because I proposed it without AFD discussion. As for #3, I meant list of tracks, not audio samples. --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination would be to say no list of tracks, but I'd suggest  this forum, for a more informed answer.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  17:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: Questions:
1)  Is this image eligible or ineligible for copyright in the US and worldwide?  --
The image is presently part of WikiMedia Commons so it can be used on Wikidpedia by virtue of it being listed has having a public domain license. If someone feels the license is misapplied, then they should propose the image for deletion using the instructions here. 
2)  Does including the image in the article help readers understand the band per WP:IUP#Content?  --  Per WP:Image the function of an image in an article is to illustrate text. Since the Like A Virgin EP is discussed in the article I see no reason why the image couldn't also be included.
3) Can I include tracks of an EP in the band article?  -- Audio may be included in WP articles as long as it's in accordance with relevant guidelines such as the ones [here].-- — Keithbob • Talk •  18:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for late reply, Keithbob. The stand-alone EP article is now deleted because I proposed it without AFD discussion. As for #3, I meant list of tracks, not audio samples. --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination would be to say no list of tracks, but I'd suggest  this forum, for a more informed answer.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  17:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion by uninvolved editor