Talk:Zorro Productions, Inc.

Dispute regarding page redirection

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) DexFB[reply]

Sorry, the Third Opinion request is intended for disputes which involve solely two editors. Here, it appears there are at least four editors involved in the discussion (ZPI, DreamGuy, REVUpminster, and tutterMouse.)JoelWhy (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe Why. DexFB

RfC: Is redirecting of Zorro Productions, Inc. appropriate

Trademark

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)[reply]

Except for the parts and links I have added it is copy of the official site.REVUpminster (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have had a go and took out all the self congratulatory parts and some copy but it needs a better person than me.REVUpminster (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I haven't read the Zorro Productions page that used to exist. My question is, is the topic sufficiently notable to warrant its own page? If so, I don't think it should redirect here (obviously). I see it mentioned in the article; so, other than being involved in a couple of lawsuits, is the company notable?

I don't have any problem with including a page for the company, even if they desire it to be here for "marketing purposes". I mean, they make a valid point -- every company tries to get a page on Wiki, they tend to monitor their own pages, and the pages tend to be edited by employees. Our job as independent editors is to ensure they are not turned into marketing pages for the company. But, again, I know next to nothing about them, so if no page is warranted, that's another matter altogether.JoelWhy (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the entry looked like before the article was redirected. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zorro_Productions,_Inc.&oldid=473548320. DexFB (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No reason for this page

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)[reply]

The problem is what likeness they are claiming, McCully or Fairbanks as it appears McCully quickly adapted his Zorro to Fairbanks. Zorro seems to be in the position of Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Frankenstein where there is no copyright but the company is using wikipedia to promote their view so if the article does come back it should reflect this. Does anybody know if the recent film Puss in Boots paid Zorro Inc. REVUpminster (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Puss in Boots is a literary character (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puss_in_Boots) played by an actor (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000104/) who played Zorro that doesn't rise to the level of copyright or trademark violation. That is like saying did Nasonex pay Zorro Productions for using Banderas in their commercial (http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question63778.html). We are going through the proper channels to resolve this dispute, and so I think that the same standard of "promoting their view" should apply to all here. DexFB (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the film character Puss in Boots is a likeness of Zorro even using the voice of Banderas to reinforce that impression just as the Queen of Swords as all QoS fans knew was a likeness of the Fairbanks Zorro and not the Disney or 1990 version. But all the different Zorros set in different times using different weapons complicate the issue as to what Zorro, Zorro productions are protecting. Looking at Zorros page an editor has included a number of obscure European film Zorro's. what is their status in the scheme of likeness, copyright, and trademark. I have never heard or seen any of them. I never objected to this page but it was just a copy of the official site and I just took out the self congratulatory parts to make it neutral and started to add wikilinks. If it comes back it should have a proper company infobox which I was going to add before the page was deleted. I think most editors edit with good faith but we all make mistakes.REVUpminster (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So, back to the original point -- any objections to adding this article back to Wiki? I think there's sufficient notability here to warrant an entry, based on the information provided.JoelWhy (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why not provided it is neutral which I tried to make it and not a copy of Zorro productions website. But there are far more experienced editors than me.REVUpminster (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the version that was last edited by RevUpminster on January 28, 2012 looks fine and the redirect done on January 29, 2012 should be undone. DexFB (talk) 12:07 am, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Based upon your clear bias and WP:COI violations, your opinion here doesn't really count.DreamGuy (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.JoelWhy (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a company infobox but the article content is a copy of the official site except the last two lines.REVUpminster (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Joel, REV -- I'll ask it again, what Wikipedia-specific reason is there for having this article? How does this topic meet the WP:GNG? How do the primary source (government databases and the company's own site) in any way meet WP:RS rules? You both seem to have completely ignored that in your discussion above and talked about the (alleged) trademarks, put the article back, and then let the company's PR rep control the text of the article.

If you want this article to be here, you need real reasons that actually follow Wikipedia policies. Either start talking about those policies and what parts of them you think apply here or just agree that there is no reason to have a separate article.

And stop trying to engage in a polite conversation with the spammer. DreamGuy (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources showing notability for this company

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)[reply]