Talk:Celebrity Number Six

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that retired model Leticia Sardá had no idea she was the subject of a four-year global search?

Source: Kircher 2024, Matossian 2024

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KMSU

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk) and Tamzin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 73 past nominations.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Can you point out where in the article the hook's information is present? I can find sources for the start and end dates, but don't see any definitive statement she was unaware of it the whole time. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles: thanks for the review! I've added that bit to the article, sourced to Kircher 2024. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Going to leave this for a 2nd opinion because I'm new; not sure about the rules if parts of the hook are present in different parts of the article. Also would like a double-check of the copyright check (I've done Earwig without Google and googled a few phrases, but I'm not sure if that's all). One thing is that the sentence saying she was unaware isn't actually cited at the end of the sentence as required; it's clear that that is the citation, but per the rules I think it needs to be. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added the duplicate citation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, it is permissible for a hook to be based on facts mentioned in separate parts of the article, the only important thing is that they're all cited with footnotes at the relevant sentences. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles: Fixed ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everything seems to be resolved except I'll leave it for a second reviewer to double-check the copyright checking. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, approving it: that mostly takes a very long time and I’m reasonably confident the article is not a copyright violation. Mrfoogles (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legality

One thing that remains unclear to me is how the photo ended up on the curtain. Some pictures adapted on the same fabric apparently came from Getty, which indicates they might have been licensed (though most likely still in violation of the terms).

Is (or was) this type of (likely) unauthorized adaptation of professionally taken photos or images of celebrities in consumer goods common in Europe? Such a product seems unthinkable in (say) the US, yet Anttila appears to have been a legitimate large business. Are moral rights and personality rights simply not respected/enforced/litigated in Europe (at least when it comes to products like this)? Nardog (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the article, Escorsell says he did not license the use. It's possible he's wrong (sublicense, faulty memory, etc.), which is why the statement is attributed in-text, but if he's right, that wouldn't really surprise me. IP violations on textiles are pretty common, or at least that's my impression. And if this were litigated it's not clear who the liability would have fallen on—conceivably just a single subcontractor of Latky Mraz. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have little doubt that the use wasn't authorized, but what surprises me is that it was sold by a retail chain in Finland. I'd love some more context around this (if there are RSes). Nardog (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: I didn't come across anything like that, probably because accusing a big retailer of committing copyright infringement is probably not something you want to do based on someone's recollection. But I think it's inferable from the article that the print was probably unauthorized. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's no doubt some rights (if not the photographers' copyright then definitely the subjects' personality rights) were violated in the production and selling of the fabric; I'm just wondering how prevalent that is in mass-produced consumer goods in Europe. Nardog (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]