Talk:Idle Cure

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shout??

So what does shout have to do with Idle Cure? At first, I thought they were the same band just a different name. However, after looking at their website (linked in the article), I don't think so. Can anyone explain it? 94.189.141.125 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I am aware, the only major connection between the band's is guitarist Chuck King. So far as I know, Idle Cure was his vehicle of expression, whereas Shout was primarily a vehicle of Ken Tamplin. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover copyright

How was the album cover a copyright violation for Idle Cure when for example there's a copyrighted cover on the Mastedon page? When I uploaded the image I used the mastedon image as a template so I would think it wouldn't be any different? Or is it different as the copyright is owned by Packaderm records which is related to Mastedon? Recyclojunk64 (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The album cover is copyrighted. That's not part of the concern.

The fair use rationale only applies to a discussion of the album ("because the image is cover art, a form of product packaging, the entire image is needed to identify the product, properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image.") but that does not apply to the band.

I'll deal with Mastedon shortly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if you look at the image File:Idle Cure-l.JPG, the fair use rational template that's applied reads in part

This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the work or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers

solely to illustrate the audio recording in question,

Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

I think that explains it clearly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, sounds fair enough (though I must admit I do regret mentioning the mastedon page now that the image there is gone aswell). Perhaps an image of the band members itself such as the one found here would be alright then? Recyclojunk64 (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that image won't work under copyright law either as it's been previously published and that alone applies a copyright to the image. If the band or their management release an image to Wikicommons, that could be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]