Talk:O RLY?/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about O RLY?. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Newspaper source!

The Independent Tiger Weekly - which is used as a "media source" - appears to be an independent paper, serving students of Louisiana State University (hence, it wouldn't be listed by LSU). I included it, because I was unclear about the origins of this newspaper. I'm not actually bothered if it goes in or not - I was just unclear as to how "reputable" this source was. --Hamiltonian 20:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap...

That O BLAARGGAG!? Owl is FREAKY! BTW, wasn't there a part in the article that stated that the death thing was a hoax? The picture I saw might be a fake but... Sprite Master 16:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that rumour was a hoax, but I believe the consensus was that it was unneccesary info. James Kendall [talk] 16:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Crappy Internet Trend

This, my friends, is just another crappy Internet trend that totally needs to be sweeped under the rug and forgotten long with "Numa Numa" and "All Your Base". That's just my two Yen.

...no, I have nothing of value to add to the article and nothing to discuss about it otherwise. Sorry to disappoint ya.

Be that as it may, it's a popular Internet meme at the moment. If and when it does become forgotten, presumably this article will get deleted. Until that time, it's sufficiently notable to merit the article. 71.236.33.191 06:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It should stay even when it is forgotten. It would be inconsiderte to our descendants to remove all the explanatory articles. Imagine it: generations over generations of future scientific colegia pondering the significance of the cryptic "O RLY?" simply because we opted to remove this article. Pure evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.108.186.216 (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

O RLY? - Cyberman

YA RLY. WikiSlasher 08:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No Wai Superme

Srsly?

YA SRSLY! --76.188.148.173 02:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cry moar. :)69.108.139.192 (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sinoc's Factory 6

This is completely non-notable. It's some random game with 12 hits on google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amcfreely (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Original O RLY? Picture

Why was it deleted? Last I checked it had an acceptable tag on it. VegaDark 04:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell. The edit summary said copyright violation, which is ridiculous. syphonbyte 05:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And unfortunately image deletion is non-reversible. Someone's going to have to re-upload it. Anyone have it handy? Bryan 05:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can find no reference to orly.jpg on either Wikipedia:Images for deletion or Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and the deleted image page never had an {{ifd}} tag or other such notification on it. There is no associated image talk page. Given all of this, I'm restoring the image using this source: [1]. If anyone wants to put this image up for deletion please follow proper procedure and actually justify it somewhere. Bryan 05:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The photographer wrote to info-en and complained that it was a copyright violation. The image description page did not identify the copyright owner, and so I deleted it as an unsourced image. There is no fair use case to be made, that I can see, and no meaningful fair use rationale was offered. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The current tag states the following:

"However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article "O RLY?"

to illustrate the object in question check.
where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information check.
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, check.

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Where do you see the problem? It meets all these parameters. If we aren't going to assert fair use then we should probably get rid of this tag alltogether since it fits the parameters exactly. VegaDark 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't meet all the parameters. The copyrighted work in question in John's owl photograph. We don't discuss it at all, except to mention he took it. That someone else used it illegially it isn't an excuse for us to do so aswell. --Gmaxwell 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How can we have an article of an Image without the image?!? I don't see how we're violating an image copyright if we're not making any money off of it; yes, cite who took the picture, but beyond that there's nothing the creator can do about it. Dozens of people break the image's copyright daily; he should go after them, not wikipedia.--142.177.156.110 00:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The licence on Wikipedia allows people to make money off of it. Many sites do make money off of it my mirroring the content and adding advertisements. Plus, we would like to sell copies of the encyclopedia one day, so we try to make a product that would be legal for it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thus harming the overall usability of Wikipedia as a web site. That's nod a good thing from where I stand, at least not for the users. The more and more articles are becoming image-less, forcing me to search the images in question all over the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.108.186.216 (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose we could agree to discuss this at Image talk:Orly.jpg only? It might get confusing having two places. --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

O RLY Picture

Until it has been decided, I do not believe the picture should be removed. The other two really don't add much, and so they should probably go (I would agree that we have no fair use for them), but the actual O RLY owl is rather important. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Complying with copyright law isn't a matter for consensus. On wikipedia it is standard practice to remove an image until it is clear that it is permitted. This is well aligned with copyright law, because you have no right to distribute by default. --Gmaxwell 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The process for adding the images lawfully has been followed. Your act of removing ALL images before discussion and without new information can easily be seen as vandalism. FlameHead 22:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware that that was the policy. Seeing as it is, I guess it stays down for now. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A detailed fair use rationale that looks pretty strong to me has been added to Image:Orly.jpg and nobody's disputed any part of it since it was posted a few days ago, it might be safe to add it back to the article now. Bryan 07:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the image (please see my comment on the Image talk:Orly.jpg page under "One Lawyer's View"), the dispute over this image is pretty ridiculous considering all the outright text-based plagarism that's rampant on this website as well as all the bad legal advice being given in the legal articles. Bobak 17:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be very suprised at being given legal advice to the effect that 'everyone else does it so don't you worry'! The picture concerned is the copyright of the owner of the image (who also, in this case, was the photographer). He has written to WP and demanded its removal stating that our use contravenes said copyright. Image deleted; there can be no further discussion. Whether there is a "fair use" argument or not is not something that WP has the wherewithal to go to court on, nor the desire to. --Vamp:Willow 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is confusing with the two talk pages. I did not add the most recent addition, post-deletion. I did get into a bit of a tiff with a rather hostile individual on the talk page of the photo page who appears to not understand the concept of fair use. Those speaking on behalf of the higher ups at Wikipedia are not doing an adequate job of explaining themselves --was it an alleged personal email, if so could it be authenticated? Did we get something on legal letterhead that actually confirms that he is who he is? This isn't paranoia, this is how things are/should be done. -- Bobak 20:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, but I was wanting to ensure both locations had a statement. The image concerned may be 'fair use' or it may not, however WP is not in a position to become a defendent in a possible legal action should that be the result of the original image remaining on the article. The mail received was authentic and there were internal discussions prior to the deletion process. Given that (imho!) one owl looks very much like another this doesn't really seem to be something to go to the walls over. I respect the opinions of others and, in a perfect world where courts were interested in only the truth and didn't cost any money whatsoever then maybe a different outcome would have resulted. But it didn't. --Vamp:Willow 21:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to hear the English person tell me I'm not a lawyer again. Please, I can't wait. -- Bobak 22:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(Undent) Why do we always ~~have~~ choose to do Mike Godwin's job for him? If there's a problem with an invalid FUR, he'll tell us and in the mean time, unless there's an office action or similar behind it, we don't jump to act on complaints. If it had a valid FUR, it shouldn't be removed just because the holder whines about it. Worst case scenario: WP:OFFICE has to decide whether the complaint has merit and/or act on it. --Thin boy 00 @009, i.e. 23:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

AOL advertisement

I seem to remember an AOL advertisement consisting of an AIM message window and a conversation of "O RLY? \ YA RLY...". Is this erroneous? - Centrx 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

O RLY image (the second)

I don't think the current image really conveys the same thing the "genuine article" does, and I'm thinking that it might be better to have no image at all, rather than an "alternative" one. (A real shame overall about the pics, the old version of the page was very useful). Thoughts? Turnstep 13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of it. I doesn't convey the point of the original. Actually, maybe the ideal middle ground would be if someone were to just make a sketch of the original owl. It won't quite be the same, but it will convey the O RLY? photo much better than the current photo. An "artist's depiction" may be the route to go, sort of like what was made for Ghyslain Raza. -- Bobak 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The current "alternate" O RLY owl, no offense to SPUI, is terrible in conveying the meaning of O RLY?. The owl's expression doesn't even come close. An artist's depiction sounds like the best idea yet pending the Wikipedia lawyer's review on if using the image is fair use or not, which I have a feeling we will never hear more on. VegaDark 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Any artists out there? I suck. -- Bobak 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also agree, that alternative only seems useful to me as a substitute for non-fair-usage such as on user pages. I note that the original Image:orly.jpg has been deleted yet again, without the current fair use rationale being argued against. I restored the image page though not yet the image itself to see if anyone would be willing to actually argue the specifics. Bryan 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use "rationale"

If you want the rationale addressed, I've pulled out what was on the image page and noted potential counterarguments to it. --Michael Snow 00:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Purpose and character. Use in the O RLY? article is extremely transformative, as the image is being used to illustrate an Internet phenomenon rather than to illustrate a stuffed owl (and see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music: "The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use."). Our usage is noncommercial and for clearly educational purposes. This factor weighs strongly in our favor.
- Educational purpose, yes. "Extremely transformative" character? It's the same picture with a few characters slapped on, that's hardly transformative at all. Putting the same work in a different context does not necessarily equal transformation. Consider the precedent you're citing; the new work there was a very significant modification of the original.
  - You misunderstand the meaning of "transformative" in the context of copyright law. It deals with the manner of use, not the actual form of the work. A use of a work can be highly transformative even if the work used under fair use is identical to the original work. Campbell summarized transformation as "altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message", something that "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message" (emphasis added). The purpose of Wikipedia's use of the image (to document an Internet phenomenon) is completely different from that of the original photographer (to portray an owl with a silly expression); if the Internet phenomenon concerned an image of a corkscrew instead, for some reason, then we would use the image of the corkscrew for the exact reasons we used the image of the owl, even though the corkscrew photographer's reasons for taking the photo would likely be totally different from Mr. White's.
    That some aspects of the case I cited aren't relevant here is unsurprising and has nothing to do with the relevance of one specific point. The purpose of the Campbell use (parody) is entirely different from that of our use (education). (I should note, though, with respect to this factor, that it would probably be best to consider Wikipedia commercial, because our commercial mirrors should be able to duplicate our images. Still, commercialism isn't a major factor.)
Nature of the copied work. The original work was "factual rather than fictional" and was not especially "creative, imaginative, or represent[ative of] an investment of time in anticipation of a financial return"[2]—although it was certainly creative enough to merit copyright, it involved no extensive arrangement of subject matter or other effort, and was much less creative generally than some photographs. This factor weighs in our favor.
- Excuse me, but what's the basis for claiming that the photograph was "less creative generally" and did not involve significant arrangement or effort? Asserting this does not make it so. If there was so little creativity involved, perhaps someone would like to recreate it, so we have a freely licensed substitute? I would note that the arguments about how essential this particular image is, because of the peculiar expression and whatnot, strongly suggest that the creative factor in the arrangement of the photo is much stronger than admitted by this analysis.
  - As I clearly stated, the image involved less creativity than many others because it involved only selection of a single figure and selection of an angle. Other photographs involve much more elaborate setups, where the author may create a scene out of whole cloth. (I'm no great ornithologist, and thought the owl was stuffed; from what other people say, it isn't, which would increase the effort required a significant amount, especially if the owl was in the wild rather than a zoo, and weaken although hardly eliminate this factor's favor to us.)
    The particular image is not important to us because of the owl's expression. It's important to us because that was the original image used in the phenomenon. It was important to Mr. White for its expression, and to the people who later illegally reused it, but not to us.
    - If the owl was stuffed, then doesn't the person who stuffed the owl have copyright on the expression they put on its face during the process?
Amount and substantiality. We are using the image in toto; however, the purpose of our presentation could not be served by any lesser amount (since otherwise readers would leave the article without knowing which O RLY owl was the "original", and whether an image they see might be somehow modified from the original in part of it that we didn't reproduce). According to Kelly v. Arriba Soft, "If the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use, then this factor will not weigh against him or her." Therefore, this criterion weighs in favor of neither party.
- The quotation marks around "original" are quite telling. It's important to remember that the "original" O RLY? image with this owl is apparently itself a copyright infringement. Trying to claim fair use of something that is at root still infringing material comes across as a very strained argument. It seems a bit like justifying defamation on the grounds that you're just repeating what you heard from someone else.
  - Um, we still can't serve our purpose as well by using any lesser amount of the work. That's all this factor measures.
Effect upon work's value. It is extremely unlikely that our use of the work would in any way decrease the value of the original work. This factor weighs in our favor.
- Yet another factor handled by assertion, conclusion, no actual rationale, voila, fair use! The photographer's specific objection cited the impact on his ability to market the work, and when it comes down to it, he's the one who will be in a position to know and offer evidence of this. Can't imagine why this might affect the value of the original? The stronger the association of the photo with this fad, the less likely it is that anyone would want to buy it for any other purpose.
  - I was not aware that the author made this complaint. I find it unlikely that there's a large market for low-resolution images of owls cut at a rather unflattering angle (remember the text would have to be cropped by people trying to compete with the original use), and we could scale it down even more, to thumbnail size. You're absolutely correct that he knows the market for such photographs better than I, but he may not be acting on purely profit-oriented motives, and even if he is, that nonetheless might not be relevant (see next paragraph), so his word on this can't be accepted without question by Wikipedia. You do, nevertheless, have a point here.
    Whether or not our strengthening of the photo's association with this fad reduces the market value is irrelevant. Citing again from Campbell, the only consideration as to what reduction a use might have on a work's value is when the use reduces the work's value "by acting as a substitute for it ('supersed[ing] [its] objects')", which reducing its value due to giving the base work negative associations does not.

In summary, one factor weighs strongly in our favor, two others weigh in our favor although not as strongly, and one factor weighs in favor of no one. We have a virtually indisputable case for fair use.

Or, rather, we have a lot of wishful thinking. --Michael Snow 00:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

- - Or not. I'll concede that my judgment on the last point may have been premature, but nevertheless, the usage remains highly transformative, and clearly educational, the original work was certainly factual rather than fictional, and we weren't using any more than necessary. Leaving the final and hardest to evaluate factor aside, the first factor remains strongly in our favor, the second at least slightly in our favor (because it's still "factual" and thus inherently a lot less creative than, say, a Picasso), and the third in no one's favor, which leaves us with a good case even if the fourth is slightly against us. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

- - I won't argue this ad nauseam, just note that the claim that form is irrelevant to transformation is considerably overreaching compared to how that analysis is conducted in the case law. Transformative character is a broad concept that you're trying to limit to a single application because you believe it to be the most favorable to your argument. Suit yourself, but don't be surprised when the other side raises considerations that point the other way, or when a court asks for a response to those issues. Your evaluation still strikes me very much as starting from a desired result and reasoning in order to reach that result (which is what I meant by "wishful thinking"), not a careful consideration of the kind of analysis an impartial court would conduct. --Michael Snow 16:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

- - - - I've never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm a comparatively knowledgeable layman. I would quite honestly be interested in reading a case that considered modification of the work in favor of the defendant in a fair use case under the first factor, rather than the third, if you had one in mind when you said "how that analysis is conducted in the case law". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Orly.jpg

A deletion review of Image:Orly.jpg has been opened at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Image:Orly.jpg if anyone wants to participate in the discussion. VegaDark 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In case you're wondering where it went, it was debated and removed. See the last edit before removal. Apparently, the image was reviewed by the lawyer from the Wikimedia Foundation, who recommended its removal. I suppose that settles that. Hbdragon88 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole process had made the "inner workings" of the WP feel like a mystical, mythical world where things happen and we plebes ar left to say "sir, yes sir". In regards to evidence for action, the average editor is told "just believe us (we're too important to show you)." Sigh...change, as they say, begins from within. -- Bobak 23:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia reaches another low...

--12.20.146.126 12:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)<('-'<)(^'-'^)(>'-')>

Link to the image externally?

Okay, it's clear to me that the image is hosted here illegally. However, it would not be illegal to provide a link to an image elsewhere, I don't think. Crazyswordsman 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not illegal, but it is discouraged in WP:EL. VegaDark 23:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's illegal is an open question. It could potentially be deemed contributory infringement; courts have yet to decide. Regardless, Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works says that such linking should not be done, unless there's a fair use case, which there is but let's not go there again. Regardless, we do have a link to http://www.orlyowl.com, which features the original prominently on their front page; it could be a bit more explicitly labeled as such, but then, for all I know someone will take that as occasion to suggest to Brad that links to orlyowl be blacklisted like links to certain other sites. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Be carful on the slippery slope of "could be potentially deemed" illegal or injurous (financial or otherwise)... As a lawyer, let me say that we can find just about anything "sue-able" for the right lawyer fees. Wakka-wakka-wakka! (but serious as well) -- Bobak 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There's been a lot of vandalism on this article lately, I think it should be protected. There have been 8 reversions since May 10th because of vandalism, for example. -- Awiseman 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this version of this talk page that was reverted... while the user who added it was perma-banned for being a troll, the ASCII version of the photo he posted was pretty darned good and he even added it to the right section on the ASCII version of the photo... should it be re-added? -- Bobak 18:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate in the article. I think he got reverted because he also added it at the top of the article. VegaDark 05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A Variation List

I'm sad that this article is pointed for deletion though, I wanted to ask if it is possible to change the "variations" paragraph to a list since there are more variations and in that way, is easier to see all of them. thank you Minako-Chan* 03:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not pointed for deletion. Keep won the last time it was nominated. --Awiseman 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Also, there are hundreds if not thousands of variations out there. How would we decide which to list in this proposed section? VegaDark 17:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

the most popular and ingenious, of course ^^; so, is this proposal ok? Minako-Chan* 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

People keep adding variations to the list. Either we remain vigilant and only include a few, or we delete that section altogether. Thoughts? --Awiseman 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. Also, a third option is to split off the list into a sub-article, as was done with the "notable examples" section of the retcon article (the list is at List of retcons). You can see how messy that approach turned out though. In any case, I do agree that we need to keep the list short if there's going to be one at all. --HunterZ 21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think splitting off a new list is a good idea. Like retcons, I've found that usually turns into an unorganized list of nonsense. --Awiseman 14:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted those 4 examples as original research. I don't think it's OR, since they're all over the internet and are pretty common. --Awiseman 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In which case it will be trivially easy to produce a citation from a reliable secondary source whicih describes these variations. Without the usual linkspam to something awful and ytmnd. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They're all in here [3] --Awiseman 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I had those 4 is because they're the easy to understand and there used to be tons and tons of examples cited, which was pointless. People keep adding more, but I revert them back to 4. --Awiseman 21:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The total number of individually encyclopaedic YTMNDs is, to a good first approximation, zero. Since not one of those is a secondary source, this is WP:OR. Just zis Guy you know? 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

O WIKI?

I don't understand all of Wikipedia's innerworkings, but it appears that somehow "O RLY?" can now be used to create the "citation needed" link. Check it out. Is this worth noting in the article? - Ugliness Man 12:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sun of a loaded gun, you're right. It's probably just a redirect though. Still, I think it's pretty funny.

Speaking of which, allow me to add my own personal creation:

--D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 12:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the Origin section.

I'm seeing an edit war brewing over the Origin section. Perhaps the person (or persons) who thinks that the reference to SomethingAwful should be removed could start a discussion here about why, instead of engaging in a silent revert war? Thanks. --HunterZ 00:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The image originated from either SomethingAwful or 4chan. Just put it down as either or rather than one or the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.238.127.11 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be reverted to how the article read when I first read it a while back: the image macro came from 4chan. I personally WATCHED the thread where someone posted something like "put 'O RLY?' on it" ...And someone did. --Kakwakas 00:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the thread still exist? Is it publicly accessible? Would be a great citation link. --HunterZ 16:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I recall this thread (sometime between 1mil and 2mil get I believe?), and I'm sure we've got it in the backlogs SOMEWHERE. I'll have someone search for it soon. tyam 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)