Talk:Poppy Munday

Image
At the bottom of the blog post that this story originates from there is a specific note that states; "(PIC: Lauren Kellegher, who plays Poppy Munday in VINCE COSMOS: GLAM ROCK DETECTIVE from www.bafflegab.co.uk)". This is identifying the picture as the actress not the character. RadMatter ☎  02:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is essentially a citation, telling us, the reader, where the image came from - but this does not deter the fact that the image is presented alongside the narrative source, acting as an in-universe image. Photos are credited to the person who took them and/or the content within them all the time, but this is not in any way meant to impact how the author uses the image. 📯 📂 03:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If the image was presented as being of Poppy Munday I would be absolutely fine with its inclusion, but it isn't. There is a note stating that the image is of the actress and not the character. RadMatter ☎  03:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is presented as the character though! Otherwise, why on Earth would Paul Magrs have placed it right at the very top of his short story about the exact character the actress portrays? 📯 📂 03:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think the caption could go either way, placed as it is at the end of the story rather than right underneath the picture. It could either be a credit as Epsilon contends (“[Starring in this] Pic: Lauren Kellegher”), or a caption to a real-world image (“[Depicted in this] Pic: Lauren Kellegher”). If it were a caption directly under the photo I'd be inclined to think the latter — but as Epsilon highlights it's not positioned like that at all, so either is possible.


 * I'd personally lean towards accepting the image as depicting the character, because it would be somewhat strange for a wholly in-universe piece of writing to be illustrated by a tangentially-related real-world image. That would be like a completely in-universe Dalek short story being illustrated by a context-less mugshot of Nick Briggs. Not impossible, but… weird.


 * Still, it's kind of an ambiguous situation. Would appreciate hearing more people's thoughts. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  03:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The image used is a headshot of Lauren Kellegher that can be found on the actress' online CVs. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul Magrs didn't even seek permission from the actress to use it and simply added it to his story and credited the actress. RadMatter ☎  03:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, but — why? If it's not there to give the reader an idea of what Poppy looks like, why bother putting the picture there at all? Scrooge MacDuck ☎  03:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to speculate any further, but perhaps he just wanted to give credit to the voice actress playing the character? All we really have to go on is the caption which identifies the picture as the actress and not the character.


 * Also in a lot of Paul's in-universe blog posts, or suchlike, he doesn't (to my knowledge) break character like this to point out a character's actor or something. RadMatter ☎  03:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think why Poppy isn't mentioned in the citation caption thing is because it would be a bit redundant to state something this obvious. 📯 📂 03:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Poppy is mentioned in the caption? RadMatter ☎  04:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a headshot. I imagine he just wanted to add media to an otherwise picture-less post, to increase engagement with links and previews. And it does not seem he has any legal right to have posted that image, either. The photographer isn't even credited. 05:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My thoughts precisely. RadMatter ☎  11:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur. – n8 (☎) 14:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorta? It's very clear out-of-universe that this is Lauren's CV photo, but in-universe, it is of Poppy.
 * Like how File:Jane Fonda Iris.jpg is of Jane Fonda as Barbarella out-of-universe , but in-universe, it is of the . 📯 📂 14:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that this was intended to be an in-universe depiction of Poppy. And also no evidence that Paul Magrs had legal rights to use the image. RadMatter ☎  15:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an abundance of evidence that this depicts Poppy, but you aren't acknowledging it. Also, I was under the notion that this Wiki only cares if DWU concepts are licensed. I don't believe a picture of this actress would get removed due to it being "unlicensed", otherwise hundreds of photos would need to be deleted posthaste, as it is very common for unlicensed images to appear in licensed works. 📯 📂 15:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Epsilon, please do not make such a comment as to suggest that I am ignoring your points.


 * The only evidence that I have seen you post is that the image appears alongside an in-universe story. This is not "an abundance of evidence", as you put it, and regardless both myself and SOTO have acknowledged this and offered reasons as to why Magrs would have included this out-of-universe image in the article. As I have said if this image was clearly meant to depict Poppy I would be all for its inclusion, however the image is noted to be of the actress only. RadMatter ☎  15:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

...because stating that picture is of Poppy would be needlessly specific, as anybody who is actually reading the story and isn't a Wiki editor can tell that this image is of the character.

For example, picture this - picture an image of a fork. You wouldn't need it to have the caption tell you that it is a fork, because that's obvious. But the image does specify that it was bought from IKEA, actually useful information. Understand what I mean? 📯 📂 15:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well no... because it isn't a picture of the character, it is the actress' headshot from her online CV (which Paul Magrs likely has no legal rights to use). If the caption stated "Picture of Lauren Kellegher as Poppy Munday" it would be fine. But the caption is "Picture of Lauren Kellegher who plays Poppy Munday". There is a world of difference in these two. RadMatter ☎  15:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)