Talk:The Long, Hot Summer/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 10:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten this one, though I did a few other reviews in the meantime. I got the movie from Netflix yesterday, hope to watch it today, and will begin reviewing tomorrow. More soon! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, enjoy the film!--GDuwenTell me! 00:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks solid to me, and was a fun read besides--some good behind-the-scenes info. I saw just a few phrases that could use some more clarity:

"Ravetch and Frank implemented their signature style" -- this is a very vague phrase; I'd suggest saying more concretely what this style consists of, or simply cutting the line.

I did some tweaks on the phrase. The "signature style" was explained, but it was not very clear because of the punctuation. It should be ok now.--GDuwenTell me! 14:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"was mostly influenced by Tennessee Williams' play Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" -- this phrase is a bit ambiguous -- is the idea here that most of the movie was influenced by CoaHTR (but not all), or that CoaHTR was the biggest influence on the movie?

Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 14:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The rest of the cast also consisted mainly of former Actors Studio alumni, including Joanne Woodward, Anthony Franciosa and Lee Remick" -- is it correct to say "mainly" here? The movie had a lot of speaking roles in it ... were they Actors Studio too?

The rest of the "main cast" sounds much better.--GDuwenTell me! 14:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"acting in that manner" -- Does this mean "behaving" or "performing" (in a cinema sense)? Also, "in that manner" could probably use clarification. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now?--GDuwenTell me! 14:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also made some copyedits and minor clarifications as I went. Please feel free to revert any you disagree with, and double-check me to be sure I haven't accidentally introduced any errors. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that clarifies the issues I raised above. Another editor has raised issues with the copyright status of some of the trailer images on my talk page. He's far savvier on these issues than I, so I'll consult with him and then post here once I've got his recommendations. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~A few phrases could use more clarity (see above).~~ Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Another editor raised questions about the copyright tags. The discussion began on my talk page, but I'll copy his comments below so that they're preserved in the record.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Thanks in particular for uploading so many images of the characters.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass.

6a.

Copied from Khazar2's talk page: To check the copyright status of some of those images you'll have to dig up an original trailer... they aren't all lacking copyright notices. Also, the rear of File:Orson Welles - The Long Hot Summer (1958).jpg should be uploaded to verify there is no notice... ebay doesn't have that available. On another nitpicky note, several of the short footnotes have broken links (10, 19, 27, 33, 34, and 44) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC) -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The images used for the article were screenshots taken from the original trailer (I added one myself, and checked the rest).
The Welles picture: I forgot to add a proper description under "Permission", that's now fixed. Typically, the shots from those times did not have any inscriptions on the back. The publicities that featured a copyright notice always had it on the front (for example theater lobby cards) where you also find the rest of the information (issuing company; in the case of actors, management information; and sometimes the photographer's signature). According to *The United States Copyright Office:

"Visually Perceptible Copies The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all three elements described below. They should appear together or in close proximity on the copies. :1 The symbol © (letter C in a circle); the word “Copyright”; or the abbreviation “Copr.” :2 The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology. The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles. :3 The name of the copyright owner, an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of owner.1 Example © 2007 Jane Doe."

The deadlinks on the footnotes were probably broken during copyediting, I'll fix them.--GDuwenTell me! 15:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, but not always. When doing research for the image in the lead of the Cary Grant article, I found several stills which had copyright notices. See this for a little bit of information that may be useful here. As for the trailer... do you have a link? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found many publicity shots of the movie, but none of them featured the back. The copyright law establishes that the three required elements "should appear together or in close proximity on the copies". The elements appear on the front: "20th Century Fox" (supposed copyright claimer) but there is not a specified date or copyright markings. I don't know if this is relevant to the case, but I also looked for copyright claims/ renewals on the United States Copyright office regarding publicity/stills but found none 1.
The trailer can be found here.--GDuwenTell me! 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you can check the online catalogue if you need to. Check for renewals 28 years after these photographs were published. I'll try and watch the trailer at a web cafe if Khazar is unable to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any registers for the stills/publicity of the movie, only the entry for the film itself. The other relevant entries are the score, and the song "The Long, Hot Summer". So far I could find no evidence that any of the publicity material is copyrighted.

It would be rather unusual (not impossible) that the copyright markings are on the back of the picture. After searching through all the available items on Ebay, I haven't found a single one that shows backside. On the other hand, there is not evidence that the work might be copyrighted either, as the U.S. copyright office establishes that the three required elements (year, holder and copyright mark) "should appear together or in close proximity". After failing to find any records for the publicity on the database of the U.S. Copyright office, I can only hold to the explanation that other similar files available in Wikipedia offer: Not all the elements required by the U.S. copyright office appear along with the picture, and as the description of the use of this kind of publicity that many files of Wikipedia feature:

“

Film production expert Eve Light Honathaner in The Complete Film Production Handbook, (Focal Press, 2001 p. 211.):

"Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary."

"There is a vast body of photographs, including but not limited to publicity stills, that have no notice as to who may have created them." (The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook By Nancy E. Wolff, Allworth Communications, 2007, p. 55.)

Creative Clearance-Publicity photos

"Publicity Photos (star headshots) older publicity stills have usually not been copyrighted and since they have been disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain and therefore there is no necessity to clear them with the studio that produced them (if you can even determine who did)."

”

--GDuwenTell me! 13:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then the publicity photo should be fine (be sure to note you searched the catalogue on the image description page). I haven't had a chance to watch the trailer yet, although perhaps Khazar will have easier access — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I watched it just now and didn't see a copyright notice, but I'm not 100% clear on what I'm watching for. Would this be a full-screen copyright notice or just the copyright symbol appearing anywhere? I didn't see it in either case, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright symbol and a year, at the very least. Doesn't have to be very big. If there's no symbol that you can see, then it's probably PD — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, not present in the trailer that I could see. I'm going to go ahead and pass this for now, but if I'm misunderstanding and there are copyright issues yet to be considered, I'll be happy to help resolve them if I can. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]