Talk:Film still

Image copyright problem with File:Derblaueengel.jpg

The image File:Derblaueengel.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous and tendentious tagging

Gerald Mast (tagged as dubious source) was an author, film historian and chairman of the English department at the University of Chicago.

Nancy Wolff (tagged as dubious source) is an attorney in the film business. She acts as counsel to Picture Agency Council of America, (PACA) trade association of stock image libraries, and PLUS Coalition, Inc. a non-profit dedicated to creating standards in image licensing.

Eve Light Honathaner (tagged as dubious source)has been a production manager on many many films and is the author of multiple books on the film industry.

Finally, the area tagged as original research is fully cited, and in no way whatsoever meets WP's definition of original research.

None of the tags put in this article bu User:Damiens.rf has the slightest justification whatsoever. After so many groundless accusations against others acting in bad faith, this is both bad faith, desparation, and just plain hateful harasssment.

User:Damiens.rf, cease and desist here, or you will be reported to an administrator. I've had enough of you.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the dubious template is meant for dubious facts, not allegedly dubious sources, so that template was the wrong one to use. If you were questioning the sources the correct template was #{{rs?}}--WickerGuy (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What is dubious is proclaiming them as experts, and the selective collection of sources to push a view of the facts. That section is unbalanced and passes those professionals opinions as the only possible established truth. The overall tone is misleading. The conclusion that the "legal case supports the above mentioned opinions" is original research.

Please, let more users weight in the discussion instead of engaging in an revert war. Although you wrote it all, you don't own that section. --damiens.rf 20:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write it all, and have not deleted anyone's additions. Nor is anyone prevented from improving the article, which is admittedly a bit harder than tagging every expert as "dubious." Thanks, WickerGuy, for helping Damiens out. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment on use of term "Expert"

I think in general when citing any authority, even one with a well-known published book to their credit, that it is unwise to simply describe them as an "expert". This actually is just a tad wee bit ever-so slightly WP:POV. Say exactly what their credentials are. The three "experts" (the quotes are value-neutral- not meant to be disparaging) cited here (and having the assertion of their expertise tagged with a "dubious" tag by User:Damiens.rf) concerning the public domain-status of film stills are in fact a film producer, a media lawyer, and a film historian. It would have been better to begin with if we had avoided the term "expert" and just said what they were, a film producer, a media lawyer, and a film historian.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. It's what I usually do when a person has a wiki article, to save the reader time. It would have saved some grief if Damiens simply asked why they were experts on the talk page, or just looked them up and changed it. But by tagging all the so-called experts, then adding a discrediting tag to the top of the article for good measure, without any discussion, questions, or requests, I think your call on this was accurate. Use of the dubious tag requires talk: "It is best to simultaneously try to resolve the dispute on the talk page," and "This template is not for flagging items that an editor simply thinks might be incorrect or unsourced." It also suggests, "Do not add this template to a page more than a reasonable number of times." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen those doc pages show up in searches, but I never knew that's they were guidelines. I always assumed they were technical specs.

The doc page for Template:Dubious makes it clear I was previously correct that User:Damiens.rf was supposed to use a different tag. This tag is only to be used when there is already an ongoing discussion on the talk page. The guidelines explicitly state

This template (dubious) is not for flagging items that an editor simply thinks might be incorrect or unsourced. This is what {{Citation needed}} is for. It is for statements that are subject to ongoing dispute among editors.

Wish I'd known what the doc section is for this afternoon.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And actually a lot of that stuff is duplicated on the template main page.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Templates Redux & Expertise- Modest Concession

It is technically true that if I wanted to replace the template {{dubious}} with {{reliable source}} I should have then placed the tag right after the footnotes of the cited statements. (Plus the RS is only to be used after there has been an effort to verify the reliability of the sources) That was an error on my part. However, had User:Damiens.rf wanted to challenged whether these people were experts, he could have considered {{citation needed}}. The docs for {{dubious}} state it is to be used when the reliability of the cited material is in question (this condition was satisfied) and has already been challenged on the talk page (which technically it had been on the images for deletion page, but not on the talk page here). So after further thought I can sorta see the logic of using this tag, but still have a problem with the issues not being addressed on Talk.

I wonder if an alternative would have been had User:Damiens.rf had used {{POV-statement}}. However, this even more strictly requires that issues be addressed on the Talk page (of the specific article presumably), and there be a reasonable doubt that the views of reliable sources are being misrepresented. {{dubious}} simply challenges the reliability of sources; {t1|POV-statement}} challenges how their views are represented, so this is probably a less good alternative. So this would not be a good choice!

So I think the best choice would have been to either stick with the {{dubious}} tag that was used, but ALSO address this on the Talk page (as the docs for that tag require)(best choice), OR use {{citation needed}} (requesting expertise be established) (better to just not use the word 'expert'- see above).

However, User:Damiens.rf certainly had an obligation to make SOME attempt to verify the credibility of the sources which he manifestly failed to do.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Publicity photo vs. production still

A portrait photo of an actor posing for and looking into the camera is a "publicity photo," whether in costume (ie. File:Rainer Ziegfeld.jpg) or not. A typical "production still" would be File:Rainer-GoodEarth.jpg, appearing as a frame capture of a scene.

The confusing part is that both types are used for publicity, except one more to promote the star, and the other more for the film. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This article needs cleanup

So far, this is full of quotes. Also, the Copyright section is becoming dubious, as quotes do not fully answer URAA and full evidence of expired copyright, ineligible copyright, and active copyrights. I wonder if Copyright section is needed for this article. If it is needed, then let's bring in more experts of film stills and copyright. --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war, so I must discuss. Look at this article: it covers what the experts believe about copyrights. Nevertheless, URAA is not reflected. This article would mislead people into believing that older photos are out of copyright without substantial evidence. --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You agree that the section "covers what the experts believe about copyrights," but then you imply that their legal opinions "would mislead people." Sounds contradictory. In any case, URAA is irrelevant for older Hollywood and U.S. studio publicity photos. Because "publicity photos" have been covered by U.S. cases and scholars, and the article is mostly about those kinds of images, their legal status is necessary. If you have cites which will improve the section topic, simply add them.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Other countries have done publicity photos, as well, such as Zhou Xuan from China and other stars abroad, like John Gielgud. --George Ho (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

These issues still seem to be present. The copyright section is U.S.-centric and quotes liberally from sources that are out of date, mistaken, poorly-phrased and/or out of context. Are there any constructive ideas for remedial work? TheFeds 08:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish: Foto fija

(Production) still and still photographer are both called "foto fija" in Spanish. You may want to insert a link to the Spanish Wikipedia article.--Lexicógrafo feliz (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No mention of musical publicity photos?

This article has no mention of publicity photographs of musical groups or artists. Is there a reason why the name of the article is Film still and not Publicity still? PascalHD (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)