Talk:Jay Maisel

Kind of Blue / Kind of Bloop Album Cover Article Text

On June 23, 2011, in revision 435831444, a brand-new editor added an image of the Kind of Blue cover and the Kind of Bloop pixelated version. The pixelated version was not created by Jay Maisel, and it doesn't fit into this article. It seems like these new editors are just trying to drag the article into the gutter. Westeros1994 (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean that you get to censor them. The picture very effectively illustrates the differences between the two images, and doesn't break any of wikipedia's rules. I have been on wikipedia for years now, this is the first time I've actually felt compelled to participate actively though. Also, reverting my edits without discussion and deleting my entry on the talk page(!) are against wikipedia policy.narf (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, Assume Good Faith. Also, the article is about Jay Maisel. If Andy Baio's album cover is notable, it should have its own article with the comparison images. Westeros1994 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the image is pretty important to help understand the incident. It should stay if the incident is mentioned. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. But the incident itself doesn't seem like an important enough fact about Maisel to bear mentioning. In addition, his thoughts and involvement are totally unknown. Baio interacted solely with Maisel's lawyers, and Maisel has said/published nothing. Westeros1994 (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the image sounds reasonable to me, but deleting the entire event does not. Also, is there any source that says the lawyers worked without Maisel's knowledge? 99.137.201.158 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, not to imply that the answer means we ought to mention this, but what is your point in saying that Maisel didn't say anything? Are you implying that he didn't know about this action? Does it matter? His lawyer indicated that he was unhappy about the cover. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is about Jay Maisel, which is exactly why the (well-documented) legal action instigated on his behalf should be mentioned here. GreenIsTheWorld (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone feels that copyright issues over Maisel's entire career deserve mention in his very short bio, then let them come up with a properly researched and comprehensive, yet brief, paragraph on the subject. To discuss only a recent case that happens to be widely discussed among bloggers in June, 2011, does a disservice to anyone relying on this Wikipedia entry for info on Maisel's life and work. I agree with the comments above to the effect that there is no evidence that Maisel had any personal involvement in this at all. Really, Andy Baio is a nobody compared to Maisel. Rochkind (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Maisel commented through his counsel that Maisel "felt violated to find his image of Miles Davis, one of his most well-known and highly-regarded images, had been pixellated". Also, a personal attack on Baio as a "nobody" is irrelevant to the discussion of the copyright case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenIsTheWorld (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph that is there now is close to something I will let stand, but I've made a couple of changes: (1) My understanding is that the Bloop album cover was a painting/drawing, not something generated mechanically, so I don't know what the relevance of it being 8-bit is. That I think is just confusing and meaningless to the reader. (2) The phrase "litigated for damages": Is there a source for this? All I know is that the two sides went back and forth for some time. Was there any litigation? Anyway, I've changed the paragraph. Rochkind (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the "8-bit" edit, thanks; much more clear. It's unknown if technically there was any "litigation" - at least I can't find a citation that would be acceptable to other editors at this time. GreenIsTheWorld (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this event should be mentioned under a 'controversy' sub-head as is the case with most celebrity articles. It should be mentioned in the context of fair use, and perhaps expanded with images and detais on the article page for 'fair use'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.98.249.59 (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

What is the reason for this tag? I don't see the POV issue, unless for some reason it is POV to mention the legal action. This feels like it might be an issue wrt undue weight, but I think it is written in a neutral manner. Can someone articulate what the POV issue is? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been uninvolved with this article heretofore - I'll remove the POV flag unless someone has a reason why it should stay up. A Train^talk 12:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I originally added the tag when the article contained extensive quotes from Andy Baio's blog. As the article is written now, the text seems neutral to me. I still think that the image comparison is a undue weight issue. I'll add a new section below. Westeros1994 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy Baio Blog As a Source

Please do not use Andy Baio's blog (or any other self-pulished source) as a source. See Wikipedia:V#SELF ("Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people"). Westeros1994 (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I added 5 new sources, including the NY Observer and 4 high distribution blogs. This should satisfy the sources requirement. narf (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not just use bare URLs in citations. Westeros1994 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's probably more profitable to just fix them rather than asking on an article talk page. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Cyber-bulling / Not A Soapbox

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a platform to defame Jay Maisel. It is an encyclopedia. Westeros1994 (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you implying that it is defamatory to report that someone tried to protect his copyright and artistic integrity? Or make shrewd real estate investments? What are you talking about? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Are you implying that it is defamatory to report that someone tried to protect his copyright and artistic integrity? Or make shrewd real estate investments?" Not at all. I was referring to extensive quotes from the personal blog of someone who just paid the article's subject $32,500 in a legal settlement! That section of the article is resolved now. Westeros1994 (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Kind of Bloop Album Cover Image Comparison

The "Kind of Bloop" album cover was just the subject of a legal dispute and was added to this article at the same time as extensive quotes from Andy Baio's (the individual who agreed to pay damages to settle the complaint) blog. I think that it's a big undue weight issue to include it in this article, especially since none of Maisel's work other than the "Kind of Blue" cover are shown. Westeros1994 (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of Controversy

It is quite likely that many people have never herd of Jay Maisel by name until this particular event of the pixelated picture and subsequent legal proceedings took place. It is indeed an easy, very objective task to measure how relevant Mr. Maisel has been in Wikipedia (view the History of the article): up to June 26, 3 entries, one in 2008, 2 in 2009. From that date up to today, in just 4 days, 36 entries.

Thus this single event is already 12 times more significant and relevant to Wikipedians than everything else, relevant to the man's character and place in history, and any attempt, however based on pity, kindness or whatever to cover up this event by some editors is simply making us look outdated. I would suggest something along the lines of a tag that marks this as an event that is taking place and changing. Mr. Maisel might still change his mind and turn this into a non-issue, but it is likely that he is not aware on how damaging this event has been.

Westeros, assuming good faith is all fine and good. However, Mr. Maisel will be known from now on to many for this one single event or decision, more than for anything else he did. I had never heard of him by name, and then I learned about this in BoingBoing, so I came to Wikipedia for more, solid information, and what I see is what looks like some sort of cop-out. Shame on us for not being able to present this event in a clear, NPOV way. I applaud the effort to make it balanced; I am embarrassed that it is done by erasing instead as by fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"he is not aware on how damaging this event has been"???? Not damaging to his reputation as a photographer. In fact, on the photography blog The Online Photographer, he his widely considered a hero for reinforcing his copyright ownership, thus helping lesser photographers. Maisel did nothing wrong here. He had the law on his side, attempted to negotiate a settlement instead of going to trial, and did in fact reach a settlement which BOTH parties agreed to. Baio's complaints about being bullied are just sour grapes and a pathetic attempt to get sympathy. He's the one who did wrong, not Maisel. Rochkind (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That is pure opinion. The law was on neither side as it was settled out of court. Had it gone to court, we could then objectively say which side the law was on. The bigger controversy is in how he has retained legal council that works purely on commission, meaning there are no out-of-pocket expenses for Maisel. Granted, that has less to do with Maisel and more to do with predatory legal maneuvers ala the RIAA and such.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.98.249.59 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 July 2011

Edited to reflect discussion. Dimension31 (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how your edits reflect this discussion. Here's a claim that this is a hugely important wrt the subject, and a reply that some forum threads like Maisel. Can you elaborate on how that justifies removing any mention of the event from the article? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Image

In view of the June 2011 controversy surrounding the copyright precisely of this particular piece, and considering that the rationale therewith indicates, in bold, that such image is meant "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question", it probably should be removed form the Jay Maisel article.yamaplos 04:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs)

Is Jay Maisel Jewish?

Is Jay Maisel Jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.149.18 (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jay Maisel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070709181606/http://www.asmp.org/pdfs/bulletins/1998/janfeb98.pdf to http://www.asmp.org/pdfs/bulletins/1998/janfeb98.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jay Maisel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070904054849/http://www.icp.org/site/c.dnJGKJNsFqG/b.2461187/k.FD49/Past_Recipients_19851995.htm to http://www.icp.org/site/c.dnJGKJNsFqG/b.2461187/k.FD49/Past_Recipients_19851995.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Kind of Bloop Litigation

Would it be worth discussing his lawsuit against the creator of Kind of Bloop? Donatj (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. Did you read the rest of this Talk page? This has been extensively discussed here. Also, do you have any evidence that there was a lawsuit? I'm not aware that a Court was involved at all. The parties resolved the matter between themselves. Rochkind (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)