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)

Legality of non-DWU based material
Okay, to address @RadMatter's rationale for removing File:Poppy Munday (cropped).jpg, this Wiki only cares about licensing when the element in question is part of the DWU. The Wiki does not give a damn if a non-DWU element or image is used without permission, otherwise literally dozens of stories would have to be removed.

For instance, many characters from popular culture appear in COMIC: Selfie, without licensing from the respective copyright holders. Does the Wiki care? It does not. Same applies for many stories, such as TV: The Return of Doctor Mysterio with its use of Marvel Comics characters, same applies for TV: Mindwarp, Dalek, HOMEVID: The Power of the Daleks for their clearly unlicensed uses of Xenomorphs and the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. To reiterate, this Wiki only cares a DWU element is unlicensed.

And this image of Lauren to illustrate Poppy Munday is not a DWU element. Lauren is not a DWU character. Therefore, the Wiki doesn't care if Paul Magrs decided to playfully pinch an image of the character's actress to illustrate the character in a not-for-profit short story he published on his blog. 📯 📂 15:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If Paul Magrs did not have permission to use Lauren Kellegher's headshot (which he likely didn't as it was only used for his blog and not for any commercial release) then we have no right to use it on this Wikia. It is just like him not having the rights to depict K9 for his Mrs Frimbly's Festive Diary short story. RadMatter ☎  15:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:Epsilon the Eternal, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'll thank you not to "lay down the law" in this kind of admin-like manner, especially in a dispute to which you are yourself a party.


 * The rule (or rather, lack of rule) to which you refer is part of T:VS and thus governs whether a story containing unlicensed non-DWU-based material can be covered. This is a different, if tangentially-related, kettle of fish to whether we can upload potentially unlawful images so long as the licenses they are potentially infringing upon aren't DWU licenses. It is possible the same standard applies, and you make a convincing argument that some precedent supports it, but that is not established policy. We're dealing in a very gray area here.


 * Also and for the record, Introducing Poppy Munday! is a commercially-licensed release even if it happens to be online for free at the moment. If it weren't commercially-licensed, we would not cover it. Therefore, the fact that it is "not for profit" doesn't factor into anything and confuses matters. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  15:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In any event a number of users have taken issue with the image's use, whereas only one user is championing it. The status of the page when I created this discussion was with the image removed and so the page should return to that status until a decision is reached. RadMatter ☎  15:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have moved it to the BTS section with an explanatory note, since the emerging consensus was against holding it to be IU, but the question of whether it can be used on the Wiki remains unadjudicated.


 * Oh, and incidentally, Epsilon's been given a brief block for edit-warring. I expect he'll be back with us soon enough, but in the meantime, that rather freezes matters here, since he was, as you said, the main voice of disagreement. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I do want to mention that this appears to be exactly what T:IPER is about. I'll also add that I personally agree that the photo is meant as a portrayal of the actress, not the character. Chubby Potato ☎  15:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Should the image be moved to the notes section of the story page too? RadMatter ☎  15:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Chubby Potato, this section is basically about this entire discussion;


 * "Promotional images — such as when actors pose in costume for a picture — are specifically disallowed. A good rule of thumb is that if the character is looking directly into the camera, the picture cannot be used on in-universe articles. Such pictures may be used on real world articles about the actor pictured, but out-of-costume pictures are preferred on such pages."


 * The image of Poppy Munday is a promotional picture of the actress (specifically a headshot) and has her looking straight at the camera. RadMatter ☎  15:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, T:IPER is the relevant policy for the previous discussion ("does this image depict Poppy in-universe?"), but not for the present section, which is "can we even keep that image hosted on the Wiki".


 * Mind you, as regards that quote you posted — whatever the case of this specific instance (which, yes, does lean towards "promotional picture of the actor"), that rule of thumb really only works for images of TV characters. Perfectly valid comic images or audio illustrations often have the character looking straight at the 'camera'. There's a reason it's called a rule of thumb rather than a hard rule.


 * Oh, and you ask: "should the image be moved to the notes section of the story page too?". Well… not necessarily, so long as we keep it on the Wiki at all. It is used as the illustration of Introducing Poppy Munday in format, even if it's not an in-universe depiction of anything from it. But if you think it's too confusing we can move it. Completley OOU covers/main illustrations to IU stories are a pretty rare occurrence. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I do think it best to move it personally. RadMatter ☎  16:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)