Talk:Goldie Hawn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Has it been proven, that Hawn's jewish? The name Steinhoff is an ordinary family name in Germany (try Google). Hawn doesn't even "looks" jewish (like many other Hollywood "Stars"). Otherwise it's just another example for the "chick" of American "Wannabe"-Jews...

Greetings from Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


she personified the 60s "it-girl."

What does this mean? "it girl" was not a 60s term.
"it-girl" is, in fact, a term coined in the 1960's by Tiger Beat magazine. The term was coined by their publisher in 1962, Joan Galdrine, in an attempt to have a fresh, new face be the "it-girl" every month. The "it-girl" was supposed to be free minded, kind of a talented up-and-coming hippie. Goldie Hawn was one of their first "it-girls."
I beg to differ. "It girl" is a 1920s term. Clara Bow was the it girl. -- Zoe

She eventually came full circle playing an aging actress in the late 90s film "The First Wives Club" oppositve Bette Midler and Diane Keaton

What does this mean? Full circle from what?
If you read the article and pay attention to the wording, you would note that, when viewed in context, it is referencing her career. In other words, she had a very successful early career playing essentially herself, which hit a slump for a great while and then came full circle with First Wives club, in which she esentially played herself (and which revitalized her career.)
Full circle from a young ingenue to an aging actress makes no sense. -- Zoe
more like a "return to form", maybe? -- Tarquin

I can't help reading a youth bias in this article. Maybe "aging actress" could be replaced by "middle-aged actress." She was not yet 50 when the movie was filmed so unless she had on heavy make-up, she was not what I would call aging (except in the sense that we all are). I also (respectfully) laugh at the note that she is still popular partly because of her daughter, Kate Hudson. There are many of us aging baby boomers who are not quite sure who Kate Hudson is but certainly know Goldie Hawn. Questors 19:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

King Arthur/Camelot movie[edit]

...during the late 80`s/early 90`s i saw a movie with Goldie playing an American tourist visiting Stonehenge;she trips and knocks her head and finds herself back in the days of Camelot and the Arthurian Round Table.Anyone know the title and/or how to purchase a copy please...?? Many Thanks Carl----

Goldie has starred in a lot of films, but I think you're confusing her with someone else on this one. the sleeper 08:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like the movie Merlin and the Sword, a.k.a. Arthur the King, in which Dyan Cannon played the American tourist visiting Stonehenge. User:Obepan 5 September 2006

During this timeframe, Goldie Hawn starred in "Overboard" where she tripped and hit her head, falling "overboard." She wakes up with amnesia. Perhaps you are confusing this premise with another one having to do with Stonehenge??


Is this whole "Studlendgehawn" thing nonesense or what? In her autobiography, Goldie calls her parents "Laura Hawn" and "Edward Hawn". She makes no reference to the family name being "Studlendgehawn", which sounds like something someone made up. Is there any sort of proof that this was the original family name? I am beginning to suspect that his name's existence started somewhere on the web and got spread around until it was believed to be true. I've removed it from the article for now. JackO'Lantern 08:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Takoma Park[edit]

A small city in Maryland, Takoma Park, takes great pride in knowing that the young Miss Hawn grew up there. The following quote is from a local paper. "Hawn, who will celebrate her 60th birthday Monday, was born Goldie Jean Studlendgehawn and grew up at 9 Cleveland Ave., a place she called "the Holy Grail of my Mind" in her recent book, "Goldie: A Lotus Grows in the Mud" (the book title isn't a crack on Takoma Park, but instead refers to the sacred Buddhist image of a lotus, a flower revered in part because it invariably grows from the mud at the bottom of a pond)." -- Gazette Community News, Wednesday, November 16, 2005.

Deletion of a paragraph[edit]

"Hawn has proved her singing talent with a cover version of the Beatles' song "A Hard Day's Night" on George Martin's album In My Life (1998). Along with Diane Keaton and Bette Midler, Hawn covered the Lesley Gore hit "You Don't Own Me" for The First Wives Club in 1996."

Why would anyone (in this case Ghosts&empties, on 8 February 2006) want to remove the above passage from Hawn's biography? If there are no objections, I'll re-insert it. <KF> 19:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It seemed trivial to me. Put it back if you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talkcontribs)
Okay, thanks. I don't think it's trivial, but even if it were, many of the other celebrities have their own==Trivia==section. <KF> 22:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed[edit]

The Good article nomination for Goldie Hawn has failed, for the following reason:

The referencing is inadequate - most of the information is not sourced. Also a few writing points need taking care of. Her career slowed down a bit is not very encyclopaedic in tone, On the show, she would often break out into high-pitched giggles in the middle of a joke, and deliver a polished performance a moment after sounds a bit fannish, in the financially successful 1996 film carries the POV that the film was not successful in any other way but financially... a general thorough copyedit would help. Worldtraveller 00:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mother's occupation[edit]

Is there a source that says Goldie's mother was a homemaker, as reported in the article? In her autobiography, she mentions several times that her mother was a shopkeeper and she waited for her with the neighbors after school. the sleeper 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


IMDB says 1945. I swear I saw her on Jay Leno when she said she'd just hit 60. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 23:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that was a late showing because considering she turns 60 late in the year (Nov 1945) Punkymonkey987 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC).

Owner of this page please edit[edit]

I tried to edit the page Goldie Hawn is very much alive! This is how rumors get started. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

How is Goldie related to Edward Rutledge?[edit]

I can not find any connection between Goldie and Edward Rutledge. Does anyone have the correct pedigree that shows their family? I can only find as far as an individual named "Paschal Rutledge". Thanks to anyone that can help.

Wyatt Russell/It Girl[edit]

IF Wyatt Russell lives in Vancouver and plays hockey in Brampton, that's one hell of a commute. Could someone clarify which city he actually lives in?

About It Girls: Tiger Beat did not invent the term "It Girl" in the 60s,. The original It Girl was Clara Bow, who was around somewhat earlier. 00:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

See It Girl. 00:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Open letter in support of Scientologists in Germany[edit]

Is there any reason why Hawn's support for Scientologists in Germany is not mentioned here? Together with Dustin Hoffman, Oliver Stone and other Hollywood stars she signed an open letter to the German government in the nineties, accusing Germany of discrminating against Scientologists. Very widely reported at the time and still occasionally mentioned in the press today. [1] Jayen466 11:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


Possible edit here it say's; Hawn founded and funds the Goldie Hawn Institute but when I look it up it saysThe Hawn Foundation. Should probably add this link to this page either way, but wanted to get a second opinion before I did it, I'm a new editor here still. I'm currently working on adding the topic article A Lotus Grows in the Mud if anyone is interested in working on it with me in my sandbox just stop by. Tinkermen (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed from "Hawn Institute" to "Hawn Foundation" and added reference sources per cite request. Also added ext. link to The Hawn Foundation and added Goldie's interview about the Hawn Foundation. Tinkermen (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Exact DOBs for minors and non notable folks[edit]

It seems like this has been discussed before, alot probably, but what is the need for giving exact DOBs for minors and questionably notable folks. I usually think that if a person has an article, their DOB is probably notable, sourcable, revelant, ect. If they are not notable enough to have their own article, then listing their birth year should safice, unless there is some notable reason or relevance to list their entire date of birth. Again, please explain the relevance of listing the exact dob for a minor here so others may consider its nclusion. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's some prior discussion on the issue, please point to it because I'd like to read it. To me, as I stated in the edit summary, it's just a couple of extra words, it's information, some people might find it useful, and it's sourced (not always easy to find actually). I mean, on your side of the issue, you could even argue that the year of birth isn't particularly relevant, or the names of the children. It's line drawing. I'm not saying I'm right necessarily, just that it's not clear either way, so I lean in favor of including the date. If there's a consensus in the other direction, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Bbb23, I'll have to look for prior discussions. I am not saying that is was specifically discussed for Hawn, but I know it was for say Sarah Palin. Folks were trying to include dobs to try to show/prove that she was having premarital sex, ect. I am a minimalist/deletionist, so I would be all for not including names of kids or year of birth ect. It seems like folks are very concerned with privacy issues, which I would support for an indiviual not notable enough to have their own article. What do others think. Maybe the BLP notice board could point us in a mutually acceptable way. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
It's unnecessary trivia. --CutOffTies (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sports shooter?[edit]

When I visited Purdey's in London I was shown their guest book of celebrity customers, and Goldie Hawn was one of them. Other than this, I don't know about her shooting activities, or what firearms she owns. She certainly can afford a Purdey shotgun, and has exquisite taste if she does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use and compilations[edit]

As stated in Fundamentals of Business Law, by Roger LeRoy Miller, 2010, p. 177,

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."

The copyrightability of "compilations" is long-standing law in the U.S. copyright. The video was created and uploaded by the same person. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have some Wikipedia policy that permits you to make a legal conclusion about the video. In general, absent an official channel of the copyright holder, YouTube links are impermissible. You can't make the determination that Craig's compilation of copyrighted material is non-infringing.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
According to the guideline, "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page." The video copyright, as a compilation, is owned by Craig and he has made it available for public and free usage. I see no reason why a link is not allowable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia and the Title 17 of the United States Code, Copyrights:
§ 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works:
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b) 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." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Same policy: "Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked to." And, again, it's not your role to interpret copyright law. You could always take it up on WP:CP.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously WP can't interpret copyright law either. It doesn't give legal advice. If there is a challenge to the link, or a dispute, I'm not sure yet what it is. You've only added that "Many YouTube videos" are copyright violations. I agree. But it's obvious this one is a compilation, prima facia, and creates a presumption that it is not a violation, according to WP: "Copyright Act allows for the protection of "compilations." If someone is challenging this, it should be their duty to support it, not an editor's: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, WP does interpret copyright law - hence, the WP policies. At the risk of engaging in a legal discussion here, compilations are copyrightable only to the extent they are sufficiently original, and they are generally compilations of unprotected components like facts. Indeed, the WP article you cite is discussing a compilation of facts, not a compilation of original, copyrighted material. Thus, the Craig "compilation" copies copyrighted material and, as such, is a copyright violation unless he can demonstrate fair use. Generally, editors at Wikipedia do not determine whether infringing YouTube videos are fair use.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that a lot of what you just said is not correct. Saying that "compilations are copyrightable only to the extent they are sufficiently original," is circular reasoning, as the law citations above make totally clear; the "compilation of facts" detail is incidental and does not exclude other means of expression, ie. film clips, audios, photos, etc. Written facts are one type only, but that does not imply an exclusion of the other types.
Stating that his compilation, obvious prima facia, is a "copyright violation unless he can demonstrate fair use," is completely inaccurate: There is no legal requirement to prove anything: copyright protection is automatically given to compilations, for one, and as stated above, only protects the "compilation," not the material compiled. We are allowed to compile snippets of any copyrighted material — printed, audio, video, photos — and the compilation is automatically protected under U.S. law. So I see no valid legitimate reason why the link should not be allowed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You don't understand the law or the policy. We're going in circles. Cases interpreting copyright law generally come up when someone sues. Compilation cases involve factual compilations, not this clip thing. However, once in a while, someone has the temerity to put together a montage of copyrighted material. The few times that happens they are sued, and they lose unless they can prove fair use (as I said above). For example, in Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc., 192 F. Supp. 2d 321 (D.N.J. 2002), Video Pipeline wanted to be able to use "copyrighted motion pictures to make short trailers, which are then made available for money to the entity's clients, which are video retailers, for the viewing by retail customers on the retailers' Internet websites, for the purpose of promoting sales of the copyrighted videos." Although the court described Video Pipeline's creations as "videoclip compilations", it did not consider them "compilations" as described in section 103. Rather, the only issue was whether the copying of copyrighted material was fair use. The court found it was not and enjoined its use of the compiled clips.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You apparently missed the essence of the "fair use" doctrine, and a key reason they lost: "which are then made available for money." If you need a list of court-allowed audio-visual compilations, for non-profit use, say so. Your comment that anyone putting together a compilation requires "temerity," will usually get sued, and will usually lose, is completely unsupported. From your very first rationale for the deletion, and your comments above, you apparently were not aware of the legal status of compilations, or you would have said so. But if you want cases to support a/v compilations, ask. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My point wasn't why they lost their fair use argument, but that it's not a compilation, it's just infringement which may be excused if the use is fair. Wikipedia editors should not be determining fair use for YouTube videos. I'm done here - I have nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Understood. But I don't think any real basis for removing the link as been made. The only example you provided is almost irrelevant to "fair use", as they company "wanted to be able to use "copyrighted motion pictures to make short trailers, which are then made available for money. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use disclaimer in description[edit]

I just noticed that the video has a disclaimer in the descrption:

THIS VIDEO IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY UNDER THE FAIR USE ACT. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

I'm sorry I didn't see it earlier but I never bothered to click the description button for more. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This video is a violation of WP:LINKVIO. It doesn't matter if the person who compiled it claims it is fair use. We cannot host it here. If you disagree, you are welcome to seek consensus but you may not restore it in the meantime. We don't keep potential copyright problems on Wikipedia while we try to work out such things. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
What she said. You don't own a compilation copyright unless you've got a legitimate right to use the works you've compiled. Otherwise you'd see me over on Amazon selling my own compilations like "Lady Gaga's Greatest Video Moments," "Dr. Who: The Best Stuff," and that enduring classic "Naked Pictures of Famous Babes That I Found On The Internet: The Kindle Edition." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, I agree with you and Moonriddengirl that the link can't be used. However, as I tried to explain above, the statutory term compilation is generally used in the context of a compilation of facts, which are not copyrightable, as opposed to a montage of copyrightable expressive works. So, for example, Company A produces a catalog. Company B comes along and copies Company A's catalog. Company A sues Company B. The facts in the catalog are not protected, but if there's enough originality in the presentation (i.e., the compilation) of those facts, Company A may own what is usually termed a "thin" copyright (translate as weak) on the compilation. Anyway, this may be more legal stuff than you want to know, but I thought I'd throw it in if you're interested.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Compilations" have their own copyright[edit]

OK, the dry verbatim citing of the law itself, above, hasn't affected anyone. Here are some real world examples, some of which could make Hullaballoo some side income (which I assume he'll share a little of.) And "compilations do not refer just to textual material, as in catalogs.

According to one of the leading legal textbooks, Epstein on Intellectual Property, (2008): (all direct quotes except if bracketed)

  • "A second way in which many multimedia works are protected under copyright is as compilations.
[see above Talk sections for code definitions] The term "compilation" includes collective works. . . A "collective work" is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole."
  • "Many multimedia works combine a variety of discrete pieces of audio, image, and text data and classic examples of compilations within the above definition.
  • [restated from earlier discussions] "Copyright protection for the multimedia author does not extend to any borrowed content, and the rights in the underlying content are not changed as a result of using particular content. With respect to the compilation, the multimedia author has the usual rights of copyright to reproduce the multimedia work, distribute copies of the work, and display the work publicly."
  • "Creativity, or lack thereof, is the critical factor in determining whether . . . compilations pass muster. . . there will be some compilations in which even a minimal degree of creativity is lacking." [And referring to the Feist case, mentioned earlier:] "Nonetheless, there are some emerging themes running through Feist's progeny. First, the amount of creativity required in selection or arrangement of a factual compilation for copyright to attach is extremely small."
  • "The 'selection' of content for a multimedia work is usually not comprehensive. . . For example, in a CD-ROM work on the history of rock and roll music, the inclusion of particular photos and songs from Elvis Presley and the exclusion of others satisfies the 'selectivity' requirement of an original compilaiton."

And something WP might consider is an example given in the book The Public Domain, by Fishman:

  • "There is yet another way an author can create a copyrightable work from public domain materials. This is by creating a compilation. . . protectable compilations can be created solely from material that is in the public domain."
  • [The book's example from copyrighted material:] "Eliot compiles an anthology of the 25 best American short stories published during the 1990s. Each story is a separate and independent work that was protected by copyright the moment it was created. However, Elliot has created a new protectable collective work by selecting and arranging the stories into a collective whole, that is, a collection of the best short stories of the 1990s."

Those are just a tiny sampling of the law protecting "compilations" and why Fair Use is essentially irrelevant. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter if the video compiler owns the rights to his creative arrangement of material which he has set to music. It is not his copyright we're worried about. The material he is using is not public domain. This is why it is a WP:LINKVIO that cannot be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You need to read this discussion first. Whether source material is PD or copyrighted makes no difference. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Under U.S. copyright law, you cannot create a derivative work without authorization of the copyright owner of the material you are using. Putting a song over a video does not remove the copyright owners' rights to it. Using clips of movies does not remove the copyright owners' rights to them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: "Using clips of movies does not remove the copyright owners' rights to them." Agree. That's been made clear many times above. You've added another incorrect statement which is actually off topic, but related: "you cannot create a derivative work without authorization of the copyright owner." That's not true. No permission is required to create a "derivative work."
Just to make sure we're all on the same playing field, I'm only citing and discussing U.S. copyright. If that's not allowed because WP is a web resource, and must include other nations' laws and interpretations, someone should clue me in. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
"No permission is required to create a 'derivative work'." ?? You must be joking, or profoundly misinformed. Here's the pertinent section of the US Code of Statutes [2]. It says plain as day "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work." You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that one; even a grumpy geezer like me can get the gist of it. J.K. Rowling may choose not to track down and sue every 14-year-old who puts their own adventures of Harry Potter on their website, though I understand she has shut down folks posting Potterporno; and while Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was OK because all of Jane Austen's copyrights have expired, don't hang your hat on publishing "The Naked and the Dead and the Vampire Slayer," "Portnoy's Complaint About Verizon Dropping His Phone Sex Calls," or "Gravity's Rainbow Coalition" anytime soon, and don't even think about "A View from the Bridge of the Starship Enterprise." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. When Moonriddengirl got off on the related, but still different, topic of "derivative works," I was riding along on what I thought was her assumption that a "compilation" was a type of "derivative work" for copyright purposes. So I'll backtrack and clarify by noting that for copyright purposes, a "derivative work" and a "compilation" are not the same. Even the Epstein book has a sub-chapter focusing on each separately, with their own definition. In his Ch. 13.02[A](c) "Compilation Protection": "A second way in which many multimedia works are protected under copyright is as compilations. [next few pages devoted]. Then in subsection (d): "Derivative Work Protection" "A third way in which many multimedia works are protected under copyright is as derivative works." [nex few pages devoted]. Basically, they are different in that a "compilation" can be made without permission, from either PD or copyrighted material, whereas a "derivative work" needs permission. The law's definitions are different for each Copyright code:
  • "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. The term “compilation” includes collective works.
  • A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
As for how the permission issue is explained in the code section alone (the driest source) is in section 106, that the owner's exclusive right to authorize derivative works. It's implied by the code and other secondary sources that compilations don't need any authorization. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
A secondary source explains it clearer. Valuing Intangible Assets, Reilly, (1999):
  • "Some people believe that the compilations of the work of other authors are not subject to copyright protection. This is not correct. In fact, the compilation of existing work may be considered an original expression subject to copyright. . . . A compilation is a copyrightable work that is the result of bringing together or arranging preexisting material (regardless of whether that material is protected by copyright) in an original way. Copyright protection is based on the original selection, coordination, or arrangement of the material, not the copyright status of the preexisting material itself." (cited from Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not simply a compilation of pre-existing work, or this video would be considerably longer, as these works are films. It consists of multiple snippets derived from full-length movies. That said, you have a long road ahead of you, I'm afraid, if you want to convince the community that people are free to compile copyrighted works without permission of the owners. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Until fairly recently, most people had no idea of what "public domain" or "fair use" meant. Many still don't. I don't like to see WP miss out on attracting readership by ignoring "compilations" as a valuable concept. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 17 U.S.C. section 201(c) states:

Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.

Thus, if you want to copyright a collective work of copyrighted material, you must have permission to copy the individual components or you must argue fair use. Even the treatise material Wikiwatcher quotes does not say that the author of a collective work may copy the components without permission.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Responding to the derivative issue, one of an author's rights is to create derivative works. If someone other than the author does so, it's infringement. That's U.S. law.
I again won't be responding anymore (as I did before going to WP:ELN). Wikiwatcher is, uh, persevering, and at some point it is no longer constructive to continue the discussioin.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is voluntary. The response to the last two conclusions above is easy for a change: they're both false. You do not need permission to create a compilation, but only for a "derivative work." You do not need to argue "fair use," since whether it's fair use or PD does not matter in order to create a copyrighted compilation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
In addition to 201(c), there is 17 U.S.C. § 106): "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ...(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work". (emphasis added) Also, "In any case where a protected work is used unlawfully, that is, without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright will not be extended to the illegally used part." (Circular 14, emphasis added) You need license to create a derivative work if the content you are using rises to the level of substantial similarity and a finding of actual infringement is not barred by legal defense. You will either need to provide evidence that he obtained "permission of the copyright owner" of each snippet and the songs, provide evidence that these are PD, or achieve consensus that they constitute fair use. Barring that, the link cannot be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Per above, this discussion is not about "derivative works," which do require permission. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer statement option[edit]

I contacted the Goldie Hawn video uploader on Youtube and suggested new wording in his disclaimer. Would this allow a link? If not, please clarify why. Note that under the copyright law, this notice is not required to have copyright protection. But its use will make notice clear so others won't infringe accidentally.

This video "Compilation" is protected by copyright, Title 17, Ch 1, section 103. The copyright in this Compilation extends only to the material assembled and arranged by the author, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. Allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, any non-profit use, and research. This video may not be reproduced or sold without permission, however any web links are acceptable.

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Nothing, nothing whatever, that the Youtube uploader can say or do will allow a link to this material. Only the holders of the underlying film copyrights could do that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Her life since 2002? Authoritative updates to this bio appreciated....[edit]

I am really interested in her present life. I can't seem to find anything authoritative on the web. Has she become reclusive? Does she have any facets of a public life? Has she officially retired from acting? If she wants to stay out of public life and enjoy a very private retirement, seems ok....just curious to know, if possible. N0w8st8s (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)n0w8st8s

Category:Conservative Party (UK) people[edit]

Regarding the newly added Category:Conservative Party (UK) people, given that Hawn is an American living in America, and the newly added citation[1] gives no specific confirmation of anything, and given that her sole interest ever in this British political party appears to have been her 2010 desire to open a Buddhist school in the UK,[2][3] and there has been no actual support of the party, nor indeed apparently any mention since that 2010 flash in the pan, my opinion is there is no reason to have this category on this WP:BLP. In fact, it probably violates WP:BLP. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm perusing the edits of SleepCovo, who has been on a tear adding such categories to non-politicians. The strongest argument I've seen so far is "person x supported such and such party in this election" and that's not enough. We have no business enlisting celebrities in these categories. We're not a tabloid, if unverified it's a BLP violation, it overburdens the category system, and it's utterly trivial. I reverted a bunch and will roll back a bunch more. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I mean, seriously. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Goldie Hawn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)