Template:Did you know nominations/Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.

Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that "lines, chevrons, and colorful shapes" on cheerleading uniforms could be eligible for copyright protection ...? Source: Decision at p. 4 & 10 (p. 8 & 14 of PDF). Source quote 1: "In this case, our task is to determine whether the lines, chevrons, and colorful shapes appearing on the surface of respondents' cheerleading uniforms are eligible for copyright protection as separable features of the design of those cheerleading uniforms." Source quote 2: "First, one can identify the decorations as features having pictorial, graphic, or sculptural qualities. Second, if the arrangement of colors, shapes, stripes, and chevrons on the surface of the cheerleading uniforms were separated from the uniform and applied in another medium—for example, on a painter’s canvas—they would qualify as 'two-dimensional . . . works of . . . art,' §101. And imaginatively removing the surface decorations from the uniforms and applying them in another medium would not replicate the uniform itself. Indeed, respondents have applied the designs in this case to other media of expression—different types of clothing—without replicating the uniform. The decorations are therefore separable from the uniforms and eligible for copyright protection." Both quotes (slightly modified) appear in the Majority opinion section of the article.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Typhlodromips swirskii
• Comment: Since this article is about the court's decision, the "Opinion of the Court" section naturally quotes or closely paraphrases the content of the opinions. The "background" section also relies heavily on quotes.

Created by AHeneen (talk). Self-nominated at 23:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC).

• Alright let's see - the QPQ is done and looks fine to me. New enough at the time of nomination, long enough. Well written and well sourced. Looking at the copyvio tools I do see it hitting on quotes throughout, but they are cited and I suppose warranted based on the subject matter. The image has an appropriate "fair use" rationale, since it has been deemed copyrightable that is important ;-). Hook is cited and the source supports the hook.

• we are good to go on this one AHeneen. MPJ-DK  17:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment pulled from prep as contains raw URLs (contrary to D3 which states "References in the article must not be bare URLs ") despite Cwmhiraeth's efforts to fix them up, they were reverted by the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• The bare URLs need to be dealt with, especially since the article has been templated. Allowing one week, after which this will be marked for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: What bare URLs are there? All of the references have accompanying information about the source and follow the Bluebook citatation style, which is permissible per WP:CITESTYLE and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Referencing style. The lead of Wikipedia:Bare URLs states (underlined is my emphasis):

A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just the text out of the URL bar of your browser copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between the <ref> tags or simply provided as an external link, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation or useful for addressing link rot. Note that some citation styles, such as the MLA style, use full bibliographic citation that happen to display the text of the URL in addition to proper identifying information, like the author, date, and title of the publication. These are not considered bare URLs.

Note that the "bare URL" allegations are under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#"Bare" / "Raw" URLs in common style guides. AHeneen (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The template has been removed (it wasn't appropriately added to begin with) and you can simply read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#"Bare" / "Raw" URLs in common style guides to see that there are no "bare URLs" in this article. The relevant DYK rule is supplementary rule D3, which says in relevant part "References in the article must not be bare URLs", linking to the same page which my earlier quote was taken from. All the references have enough bibliographic information to locate the original source (which in some cases is in print, see the Citing sources talk page discussion). AHeneen (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Funnily enough you've been asked to use Wikipedia style citations in that discussion yet refuse to do so. This isn't going on the main page until the raw urls are fixed as they are in pretty much every other law article on Wikipedia. This one isn't special. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)