Talk:The Cool Wall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 Change log 2.1 9x04 2.2 8x03 2.3 8x05 3 Copyright 3.1 Section break

[edit] Cleanup

This page requires some SERIOUS cleanup. Bolmedias 12:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added some section headers to break up the paragraphs. The link to the cool wall on the BBC's homepage is broken, so there are no most of the cars listed placements aren't verifiable without digging. It would be good to have an episode reference for each car already listed. Moreati 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried contacting the people at the BBC using the Contact Us links, but all I got was the auto-reply message. I know there are some wrong entries, but I don't know which ones. Bolmedias 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to make a big fuss of this, but I am a huge fan of the actual show, and I believe that the DB9 Section really is a section in its own rights. I don't care if I lose my account over this, but there should be a reference at the very "least." Bolmedias 12:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change log

Right, I think I've seen the problem with the upkeep of this page. I think we ought to log the changes made to the wall in each appearance. For instance:

[edit] 9x04

• All 4x4s moved to uncool, due to some balls about Socialist women.
• New Gallardo placed as Seriously Uncool, because Jeremy's bought one.
• GT44 moved to subzero (Jeremy's got rid).
• 911 GT3 RS placed as SU, through the KST test, and a Cock-o-meter.
• Kia Cee'd placed Uncool.
• Richard proposes motorcycle, Jeremy destroys it. And the wall. And the supercar directly above it.

What do we think? – DBD 19:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that that format sounds very good. But are you proposing we use both that and the current format? Bolmedias 11:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What I'm in fact suggesting is we keep the changelog here, on the talkpage, to make the upkeep of the main page easier. Unless somebody else thinks differently? † DBD 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's good. Although it may be a bit hard to do. Bolmedias 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 8x03

• Lotus Exige S placed as cool, and then promptly moved to Uncool upon the labelling of it as being cool by a man in shorts.
• Proton Savvy placed as Uncool because of its name.
• Nissan Micra C+C placed as far down as possible (SU) because of its colour and more.
• Jaguar XK placed as uncool because Jaguar made the boot big enough for golf clubs.
• Koenigsegg CCX placed as cool because it's so scary and dangerous.

[edit] 8x05

• Citroën C6 placed as Sub-Zero, mainly upon Jeremy's claims that Jean Reno from Ronin and Léon would buy one.
• Peugeot 207 placed as uncool. Jeremy tried to text KST for her opinion, and received a text about a restraining order that includes texts, and so KST would call the police.
• Skoda Fabia vRS placed as SU, because 'all Skodas are deeply uncool.'
• Saab 9-5 placed as uncool, because 'they've fitted it with Dame Edna Everage's spectacles.' This joke refers to the headlamps.

How's that then? Bolmedias 12:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now also updated and corrected the wall, along with several references. For the time being, I've listed the Ducati 1098 from 9x04, but I am poised to delete it if thought necessary. Also, it would appear that Fiona Bruce has again been replaced by KST, so we should change that. Bolmedias 11:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done indeed. Except, I think it was made 100% clear that the bike is *not* on the board... It doesn't really get much more emphatic than being chainsaw'd off... ^† DBD 14:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There are so many exceptions to their rules on the board, e.g.: James May owns a Fiat Panda, so it should be uncool; Clarkson owns an SLK 55 AMG, so that should be seriously uncool as well as the standard SLK. Then there are so many cars that aren't even on the wall. And that bit with KST in 9x05 didn't actually effect anything on the wall, so where did the Fiat Punto go? Bolmedias 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

The list of vehicles on the cool wall is copyright, just as the Billboard Top 100 is copyright and the UK top ten is copyright (yes, really, we just had to delete a couple of articles following a legal complaint from the rights owner). You can list some examples, but you can't list great chunks of it. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I think you'll have to provide a better explanation as to why you think the cool wall list is a copyvio. There's a world of difference between a commercially-exploited current pop chart (i.e. this week's Billbard 100), and reporting of things discussed in numerous factual tv programme episodes over a number of years. DrFrench 21:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a list which is a part of the show. The list is copyright. We may no more repeat lists from broadcast sows than we may reproduce the script. Excerpts, fine, whole content, no. This is based on my understanding from numerous communications. I will check, of course, but with copyright the rule is "when in doubt, keep it out". In fact, the onus is always on the editor seeking to include content to demonstrate that it is valid, but that is an aside. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If the information is referenced adequately from an episode I cannot see a problem with its incision surly this cannot be a copy vio. Also I still fail to see how this is copyrighted in the way you are suggesting you are treating it as if it none of the information on any of the top gear segments can be included. I think if this occurs all that we cold say is Top Gear is a T.V show on the BBC because under this rationale even saying it is a motoring show would be a breech of copyright.--Lucy-marie 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• It can. The script unquestionably is and that too can be verified from the broadcast. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Cool Wall falls into the same category as a music chart. It's not presented as a list. E.g. the Billboard chart involves a process of research to produce an ordered list with a high commercial value (hence why the copyright holders wish to assert and protect that value). The Cool Wall is not a chart, there are no 'chart positions' like a music chart. It's merely an ordered list of opinions that have been asserted over along period of time and (as far as I'm aware) is not available as a complete list from any other source. It's more anagelous with an episode list than a music chart. (BTW if it was something like a high-res image of the wall, then I'd agree with you.) I'd say let it stand unless there is compelling evidence to remove it. DrFrench 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't think. But other similar lists, such as the singles chart, do. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I might be suffering from brainfade... but I'm not clear what your comment means! Could you expand it a bit? DrFrench 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way but I didn't understand a word of your response guy and please can you provide a form of source which backs up your claims to this being a copy vio, It also seems that wikipedia ownership of an article should be studied as well as reason says that this is not a copyright violation.--Lucy-marie 22:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have an aside question is this an April fools joke?--Lucy-marie 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not likely that it's a joke. It really isn't worth the risk of including it, what JzG says makes sense. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

THis has been on wikipedia for god knows how long and nobody has ever questioned it until recently I strongly doubt that anyone is going to care from the BBC, THe presenters or Top Gear crew about the inclusion of this. I also fail to see how this make sense as It does not compare with a chart or other and it is referenced by the show it self what next removing the U.S constitution from wikipedia as it may violate copyright. Ridiculous.--00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs).

The US constitution is government material and falls under the public domain, if I recall correctly, so the comparison doesn't apply that well. A full or lengthy inclusion of the contents of the cool wall may very well fail WP:Copyright. A short citation, like top three of the categories, is one thing but a verbatim copy is a whole other cup of tea. The argument that "they probably won't care" doesn't apply in copyright law. Or do you seriously suggest Wikipedia should contain all kinds of copyrighted material until someone knocks on the door to complain? --Strangnet 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly that. Reproducing substantial chunks of somoene else's work is always going to conflict with their intellectual property rights. As noted above, a few examples from each category should be unproblematic. I apologise if my comments thus far have not been adequately clear. Hopefully this will clarify:

• This is about copyright not verifiability. The contents can be verified from the show (whoop! whoop! original research!), but the list is the BBC's intellectual property, just as the script (which can also be verified from the show) is the BBC's intellectual property. The two issues are separate. Is that now clear?
• You might think that lists are not copyright. They can be, and usually are. For example, the UK singles chart is copyright. You can say a record reached a certain position, that does not violate the copyright, but if you reproduce the top ten then you violate the copyright of the compilers (they are called something like the UK music charts company or some such). We have had to delete articles following legal complaints on that basis. Is that now clear?
• Under the fair use provisions, we can almost certainly give a few examples of the cars that fall into each group. That does not interfere with the BBC's ability to reproduce and profit from the list.
• Some lists are not copyright, for example lists of tour dates or release dates for car models. In those cases, though, some presentations of the list may be copyright. If you compile such a list it must not look like the source list, and should ideally come from numerous published sources with information from more than one place, to ensure that the work is novel and not derivitive. This is a subtle one, and not truly relevant here, I include it only for reference. I am not sure whether a list of UK No. 1 singles would be copyright, I have a nagging recollection that it is, because it relies entirely on the list compiled by the chart company, but that is not relevant here either.

I hope that's all straight now. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No this is not clear I do not see how this compilation of information form different episodes of a T.V show violates copyright as the list is unavailable as a list anywhere else. if the list was available on the top gear website or in the magasine then I would see that It would violate copyright. This compilation of information is not available as a whole in any other place and therefor as people have complied the list through watching the T.V show and not by copying from another source then something is not being directly copyrighted. i would like to say this is being to scared of an overly strict interpretation of copyright law. If you wish to proceed with this then please go through the entire article with you uber strict copyright interpretation. i move we take this further such as opening it up to an RFC or similar so we can get a wide range of views as this will effect large chunks of wikipedia.--Lucy-marie 10:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear-cut. The cool wall is a Top Gear feature, the list of cars that is on the cool wall is part of that, the list of cars on the cool wall is the BBC's intellectual property, because it's a BBC format. Of course, if the only way to compile it is by going through the shows and picking them up, then that also violates no original research, but the fundamental problem is that the list is (to a high degree of probability) the BBC's intellectual property. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That does not violate original research as nothing is being interpreted from the information, and nothing is trying to be concluded with the information, it is the legitimate use of the show as a source. Also can it be proved that the list is definitively the intellectual property of the BBC --Lucy-marie 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lucy-marie, you appear to be looking at this backwards - "we want this list, therefore let's assume it does not violate policy". It doesn't work that way. In order to include the list, the onus is on you to show that it does not violate policy. I have given my opinion, and I've also posted it for review at the admins' noticeboard, which is where one or two of the above comments come from. My knowledge of copyright and Wikipedia copyright policy is reasonable but I am not a copyright expert. I have fielded legal complaints from owners of lists, including the UK music charts. In case of ambiguity, the safest course, to avoid legal threats and being sued, and also to do the right thing per our mission to be a free-content encyclopaedia, is not to include content whose copyright status is ambiguous. In this case I'd argue it's not even that ambiguous. If you want to get the BBC legal department to mail info (at) wikimedia (dot) org with an unambiguous statement that the list is not considered copyright, then the problem will be solved. Otherwise we're just guessing, and where you have competing guesses on Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt should always go to the safest option. I am also enquiring elsewhere, incidentally, to try to get a wider perspective. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming nonsense The information has remained on the site for a long time if anybody wanted to sue us they would have done and if someone asks could you please take this down we are from the BBC and believe you are violating our copyright, then take it down. Just at the moment it seems pointless to be this strict on interpreting copyright in such a way.--Lucy-marie 10:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what would you recommend those, who make use of the list on Wikipedia and publishes it on their site as it is GFDL when posted here, do when they get sent a Cease and Decist letter? The view on copyrighted and un-free material is that it is a definite no unless otherwise stated - and not the other way around, a no if someone objects to it. Calling the discussion nonsense is one way of seeing it, but there's still the requirement to show that BBC's intellectual material, that they've compiled and used as a feature segment in their show, isn't bound by copyright law to the extent that it can't be included in its entirety or so much that it infringes on the original's threshold of originality. --Strangnet 11:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you prove a negative?--Lucy-marie 11:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside I have asked numerous question in the bulk of my comments which have yet to be answered. ( this is just to let people know i do expect an answer to these questions).--Lucy-marie 11:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad luck, Lucy-Marie. There are a few game-players around at the moment who want to expand the notion of Original Research and expand the notion of being defensive in the face of potential, but remote, copyright issues. Eventually they'll take it to is logical conclusion ("if something is not copied, then it is original") and get rid of everything ;-). 193.26.4.35 11:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This should be investigated. I don't think the list is copyrighted, because lists contain compiled data, not original content. In the Nethelands (and Europe?), compiled data cannot be copyrighted for that reason. In a big legal battle, the KPN (Netherlands' incubent phone company) lost to another company that released an alternative phonebook. The same applies to top-100 lists. Publishers of lists may claim copyright, but that's usually scare mongering as they know that compiled data cannot not copyrighted. --Edokter (Talk) 12:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But threshold of originality doesn't apply on phone books, compiled lists or sports results, as they are a raw compilation of data. Musical top lists and lists like the cool wall etc, has had either or both time and research invested into it, which should make reproducing it and relicensing or rebranding it a breach of copyright law. I agree that someone should have a deeper look into it, or perhaps even contact BBC:s legal department to clarify how the owners of the list sees it --Strangnet 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Edokter it is the same as the statistics used for fantasy baseball in america it was proved that even though the NBL produced and complied the statistics they were not copyrighted and fantasy leagues were entitled to use them.--Lucy-marie 12:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And another case of compiled raw data, correct? Question is then, how is Top Gear's cool wall a collection of raw data, when they've weighted their own opinion, experience and the cars' appearance, when presenting it? --Strangnet 12:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A list of sports fixtures can (apparently) be copyrightable (see the bottom of this page on the BBC website) but not an individual fixture. Similarly a complete list of this week's Billboard 100 may be copyrightable, but mentioning that track X got to number 1 is not. That's fine and I'm not going to dispute that. Both lists are the product of some reseach and compliation and have a commercial exploitation value. The Cool Wall does not fit in that category. It's a wall with some pictures of cars stuck on it. Every now and again someone sticks a few more pictures on it based on a whim and no research whatsover (unless "it's uncool because footballers will drive it" counts as extensive research and compilation). Posting a copyrighted tube map is a blatant copyvio - posting a list of Tube stations is not. Similarly, posting an image of the cool wall is copyvio - posting a list of what's on it is not. DrFrench 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You think. But unquestionably the judgement of what goes on the Cool Wall is not objective, it is an editorial decision on the part of the presenters. From what external source can you objectively verify whether a car is cool or not? As far as I'm aware there is no such source, and there is no evidence that they have published objective criteria by which one could replicate their calculations and thus re-create the work from scratch, as one could with, say, football scores.

Here's what i think is the relevant section from copyright law: The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. Note that in this case the compilation by Top Gear draws on no evident pre-existing sources and is entirely novel. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a collection of raw data. A post on the mailing list from Seth Finkelstein, who has some experience of this, refers to a concept called "compilation copyright", see http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

"A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship."

Also, "facts about a show" can be owned, see http://www.rcfp.org/news/1998/0824i.html

"SECOND CIRCUIT--A trivia quiz book testing readers' knowledge and recollection of lines from the 'Seinfeld' television show does not qualify as a "fair use" and as such constitutes copyright infringement ..."

As another editor on the list says,

Under U.S. precedent (the Feist decision) (of course, law in the U.K. and elsewhere may vary or be unsettled) if the selection and arrangement of a list is entirely by objective criteria which could be performed mechanically, then the list is factual information that is not copyrightable (the case in question involved a telephone directory, including all listed numbers in a given town arranged alphabetically). If there's some subjectivity involved (like a list of the best songs of all time according to some critic or group of critics) then it's probably copyrightable.

Of course, we are all (me included) guessing. And in fairness, one long0standing contributor was concerned I was just looking for a reason to exclude the list, which I don't think is the case, evil rouge admin though I am. I do watch Top Gear, my kids insist. There does seem to be some objective external support for the idea that we should not include this list without first validating the copyright status. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is the conclusion of this is think this. I should personally go strait to arbitration bypassing the usual procedure as this has such a profound effect on large chunks of wikipedia.--Lucy-marie 09:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If it due to violate copyright or lack of source, then I guess Wikipedia should close down. I didn't see the Categories list are copyright from TopGear yet it didn't pose any dangerous to them. It was officially make into public by their website. So if it due to copyright problem should any article that talk about TopGear such as this Cool Wall or the TopGear Episode List should be remove as well.

• This has virtually no effect on any parts of Wikipedia. Typically we do not reproduce in their entirety lists which are compiled by others according to their own novel criteria. Please feel free to cite other articles where we do this. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This has a huge effect as every episode list would need removing and all similar list would need removing this does greatly effect wikipedia.--Lucy-marie 11:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

An episode recap is hardly the same as a verbatim copy of the list. --Strangnet 11:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

It is time for some expert advice, because all this speculating is getting us nowhere. Now MadChester is proposing to delete the list of celebrities from the Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car article. Since this now affects multiple article, I propose continuing this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. --Edokter (Talk) 12:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)