Copyright Term Extension Act is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Copyright Term Extension Act is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has long been illustrated with this image, which illustrates the the historical increased terms of copyright. Yesterday, Piotrus (talk·contribs) replaced it with this one, with a superimposed "Mickey Mouse curve" to illustrate the historical closeness to expiration of the Mickey Mouse character, calling it a "new better image". I reverted; the first image better illustrates the subject of the article, which is the CTEA, not specifically the duration of Mickey Mouse protection. There's no real context for the image suggested by Piotrus, and it violates WP:UNDUE by elevating the Mickey Mouse issue to the central illustration of the article.
Piotrus has reinstated his image. I am now reverting per WP:BRD, and invite Piotrus to obtain a consensus for the change here on the talk page. TJRC (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Even the lead notes the alternative name. I think it is reasonable to have an image that explains this. I think it is hardly undue, just like mentioning the name "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" isn't. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I was kind of hoping to hear some other voices besides yours and mine. Anyone?
The article is not about the "Mickey Mouse Curve." An illustration that shows the "Mickey Mouse Curve" does not illustrate the subject. Yes, the statute has been derisively called "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act" and variants thereof. For what it's worth, I don't think that makes it lede-worthy, although it obviously belongs in the article itself, so that fact that the reference to the phrase "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" is in the lede is not very persuasive. But in any event, the proposed replacement graphic does not illustrate that. And it's too POV to serve as the article illustration. (For the record, the POV that the illustration pushes happens to coincide with my own; I opposed the Act when it was proposed, and still think it's a lousy law; but the fact that I share the POV in no way means that I support having it pushed in the article.) TJRC (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)