Talk:Zorro Productions, Inc.

message: A Third-Party Opinion is requested concerning the repeated redirection of the Zorro Productions, Inc. page, posted by Zorro Productions, Inc., and redirected by DreamGuy.
To date, Zorro Productions, Inc. (“ZPI”) has made two attempts to respond to DreamGuy’s redirection of the article/page on Zorro Productions, Inc.  In December 2011, ZPI posted a note on the Zorro Productions, Inc. talk page, but DreamGuy did not respond.  In January 2012, Zorro Productions, Inc. sent a specific letter to DreamGuy in conjunction with ZPI’s plan to repost the Zorro Productions, Inc. page, asking DreamGuy, in good faith, to communicate with ZPI concerning that reposting.  Rather than make any effort to respond, DreamGuy chose to take the unilateral position, again, to redirect the posting.  
1.  There are surely thousands of company pages on Wikipedia, many similar in nature and purpose to Zorro Productions, Inc.  Marvel Comics, DC Comics, and Classic Media, to name three, are such companies.  Their pages have not been removed under the guise of “marketing” or under suspicion due to information included by employee editing.  Just as with any other company, ZPI is entitled to post information about the company with objective, substantiated sources cited.  A company employee is most likely to have access to accurate facts, as well as the underlying source material to support those facts.  Whether this is marketing or not, there is nothing within the Wikipedia guidelines that prohibits this posting, especially where the text is substantiated with proper cites.  It is not for one editor to deny any author their free speech rights, especially when those rights are exercised with foundation, truth and within the rules of the Wikipedia universe.  It is disingenuous for DreamGuy to argue that a ZPI employee is somehow suspect as an author, especially if he refuses to enter into a dialogue with ZPI about exactly what those suspicions are and when external citations have been included as to non-disputed facts.
3.  The Zorro Productions, Inc. page does not cite or argue legal claims, but cites the company’s legal property. Moreover, there is nothing controversial about legally registered trademarks and copyrights.  As noted in ZPI’s sources provided, one can objectively find the company trademarks and copyrights on the USPTO and Library of Congress websites.  Clearly stated on the Zorro Productions, Inc. page were sources for partial trademark/copyright holdings, with the further direction to review international trademark registries, if interested.  The purpose of the Zorro Productions, Inc. page is to solely discuss Zorro Productions, Inc., not the character of Zorro, which is extensively covered on the Zorro Wikipedia page.  (ZPI does not address a discussion of the Zorro page here.)
4.  Wikipedia’s definition of “encyclopedia” is “… a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.”  If the purpose of Wikipedia is to act as an encyclopedia providing information of “all branches of knowledge”, then to remove the Zorro Productions, Inc.  content, as DreamGuy has done through redirection, thwarts that purpose.  If Wikipedia’s further purpose is to allow common editing to arrive at an ultimate knowledge, then the ZPI page, which contained honest, neutral and substantiated facts, meets the “Wikipedia-specific” requirement for such a posting.    
4.  Wikipedia has an extensive discussion of “neutral point of view”, acknowledging that there is no such final definition of neutrality as objectivity, and asserting, among other points, that a perception of “lack of neutrality” is not an excuse to delete.  There is nothing about opinion in the Zorro Productions, Inc. page.  For DreamGuy to redirect the information was an improper use of editing under the guise that there was nothing of value provided.  
The Zorro Productions, Inc. page was posted within the scope of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars.  The end result of the situation is that DreamGuy is, for unknown reasons, carrying a bias against ZPI as evidenced by his refusal to communicate with ZPI directly.  In the continued interest of resolving this apparent dispute, ZPI welcomes a Third Party Opinion. DexFB (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute regarding page redirection

message: Hi - I'm not trying to whitewash anything.  I am just trying to separate Zorro stuff from Zorro Productions.  Obviously, there will be some overlap and cross referencing.  When it comes to the the legal dispute section, there wasn't anything about Judge Collins' vacating here original order.  That's not whitewashing, it's just giving the most accurate picture.
When it comes the amount of items we have licensed that is completely accurate and Zorro Productions is a legitimate Licensor.  I'm sorry if the formatting is off on these items, but to remove the company because of form, not substance seems incorrect.  Also, if Zorro Productions authorized the republishing from their website, it is not a copyright violation.
DexFB (talk) 
Have added the legal disputes and cites and am slowly adding wikilinks. It certainly looks like the main article has been written by a close source. If the trademark section disappears I shall restore it.REVUpminster (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * Makes sense, the article was a redirect until recently when someone representing Zorro Productions came and put that down. I believe there should be an article at any rate but not one which is almost entirely made up of a copyvio. tutterMouse (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Well, if the article was going to be added back to Wiki, it would need to state that Zorro Productions claims to hold the right to the Zorro copyright. Based on the court cases, the rights to this IP (and whether it is part of the public domain) is in dispute.JoelWhy (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Trademark

message: This page was created to be marketing by someone clearly from the company. The claims about trademarks made by the company itself are highly controversial (as covered in the Zorro article) and had nothing to support them other than the claims by the company. There's nothing here that makes it notable enough to have a Wikipedia article on its own. The company does nothing but try to license the Zorro character. The legal issues involved are already covered on the Zorro article. That's all there is to say about the company. It's not like it does anything else. As the article serves no valid encyclopedic purpose, I have redirected it. If you want it here please give *Wikipedia-specific* reasons why it should have its own article. "Article was here a long time" (paraphrasing an edit comment that restored it) does not count. DreamGuy (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether Puss infringes on Zorro's copyright (assuming that Zorro is not part of the public domain) would be something the courts would have to decide. There certainly are arguments for making such an infringement claim, but no way to say for certain whether it would win or not.JoelWhy (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As this company is very litigious. Why have they not sued? Why did the QoS and Mars case fail. Because Zorro has entered the public domain??? Fairbanks Zorro and it's sequel are over 85 years old and I am no expert on US law but there are tv series much later already in the public domain. It is a nightmareREVUpminster (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They have sued, according to the Wiki article. Two cases shown, both settled out of court. IP law can be very complicated. It is certainly feasible that Zorro would remain protected under U.S. Copyright law until now, however it depends on a number of factors. The fact that an earlier TV series falls within the public domain doesn't mean Zorro doesn't fall within a different set of U.S. laws based on changes in the laws, how the copyright was established, when the author died, etc.JoelWhy (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Based upon your clear bias and WP:COI violations, your opinion here doesn't really count.DreamGuy (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reason for this page 

message: We can all agree that Zorro is notable, but this company does not appear to be. The only sources given on this article fail WP:RS rules to be used on Wikipedia at all, and for a topic to have a Wikipedia article to itself there must be multiple reliable sources that are notable themselves giving non-trivial coverage of this specific topic, which in this case is the company and not the character. We don't have that. Not even close. Therefor there is no reason to have this article.
Furthermore, the article was clearly written to advance claims of trademarks, etc. that are VERY much disputed. The text of the article was clearly intended to push a POV that the company legitimately owns intellectual property rights to the character, etc. The reliable sources we do have suggest that just the opposite is true.
I have once again redirected this topic to the main article on Zorror as there is no evidence of this company having any notability on its own as a separate entity from the character -- and considering that the company's sole purpose os to market themselves related to this public domain character, it would be very hard pressed to prove any independent notability.
The edits of User:DexFB clearly show an individual here to do marketing and to push the company's POV. Any edits he makes to articles should be reverted on sight, as his editing here violates WP:COI and WP:SPAM rules. DreamGuy (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reliable sources showing notability for this company