Archived and Closed
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: Old thread
I've noticed a lot of movies (particularly more obscure [but not excluding popular] animes) don't have pictures to go with them (Steins;Gate) /and/or has the wrong title ("Kappa no ku to natsu yasumi" should be listed as "Summer Days with Coo" with the Japanese title being listed as the alternative title). Is there any way to fix this?
I wanted to compose a list on imdb and it just looks bad when certain titles don't come with pictures or have the less popular title listed as the main title for the film.
I wanted to compose a list on imdb and it just looks bad when certain titles don't come with pictures or have the less popular title listed as the main title for the film.
Posted 7 years ago
Giancarlo Cairella, Official Rep
Peter, Champion
IMDb uses original titles as displayed on screen, but transliterated in case of non-Western alphabets. Why do you think this Japanese film had an English original title?
Except some titles use the Japanese title, while others use the English one.
i.e. the film listed as "The Perfect World of Kai" vs the film listed as "Kappa no Ku to Natsu Yasumi"
All i'm saying is that its extremely inconsistent.
i.e. the film listed as "The Perfect World of Kai" vs the film listed as "Kappa no Ku to Natsu Yasumi"
All i'm saying is that its extremely inconsistent.
Peter, Champion
Actually, the film "The Perfect World of Kai" is listed under the primary title "Piano no mori", so the principle stands. If you see the English title displayed it's because some alternate titles are displayed for some users depending on location. You may be right that the alternate title data is inconsistent or incomplete.
Emperor, Champion
Also surely if wikipedia has already gone through the trouble of declaring the use of an image that is not free-content useable as free content, then you can do something at least similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yob...
That is not flagged as "free content" (I have my Wikipedia admin hat on here ;) ) - in fact it is specifically flagged as "non-free content" and uploaders have to jump through a lot of hoops to demonstrate that this is being used in a way that counts as "fair use". This is a complex principle which is applied and interpreted differently in other countries, sometimes having to be defended in court. Using it for commercial applications is trickier (Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organisation) but this has become easier to claim more recently as it has become increasingly important to folks like Google (the first criteria Wikipedia use is whether it infringes other commercial applications, which can make life difficult for cpamnies trying turn a profit partly using someone else's intellectual property), but IMDB was born in the very early days of the Internet before such matters had been thrashed out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
While it is certainly possible they could Also worth flagging up that the poster service is an important part of IMDB's revenue stream and if they lost this they'd have to find a way to make up the money somewhere else - it is always going to be a balancing act, because you've got to provide as much of your service for free, while charging for optional extras (and adding a film's poster should be a negligible part of just about anyone's film promotional budget). So, despite requests, simply adding film posters for free won't fly:
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
The suggestion to allow the uploading of public domain images as been flagged as "under consideration":
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
I guess I worded my comment poorly. I did say that the image was non free content. I simply meant that they were using the image content for free.
I should have worded it "declaring the use of an image that is not free-content useable under fair use" I guess.
I guess all I meant was that if other websites can jump through hoops so can imdb.
Thanks for commenting.
I should have worded it "declaring the use of an image that is not free-content useable under fair use" I guess.
I guess all I meant was that if other websites can jump through hoops so can imdb.
Thanks for commenting.
Emperor, Champion
The main problems are still:
* It is easier for Wikipedia as they are a non-commercial entity.
* It is an income stream.
I'd also imagine it'd be a bit of a pain in the backside to sort out as the system would have to be more heavily automated than Wikipedia (which relies on users checking images and chasing up submitters, nominating images for deletion if the problems persist) to prevent people from sending in images that are too big or too high resolution, as a commercial entity if you infringe the second point of the license Wikipedia uses, "infringe on the commercial opportunities" then it could get legally problematic quickly). This would, in turn, result in a steady flow of people coming over here complaining that they've not been allowed to upload an image, etc.
So you'd need to get IMDB to create a new system that could generate hassle from a number of different directions, which would negatively impact their bottom line. Not something I'd ever want to run past a boss ;)
If we can get the ability to add public domain images then this in itself would be very handy in covering a lot of the gaps (so be sure to +1 that). In addition GC has mentioned another possible angle of attack on this problem:
Amazon.com's home media covers aren't as good as a poster, but better than nothing:
www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n%3...
Although there are these
http://www.amazon.com/Animation-Stein...
http://www.amazon.com/Steins-Gate-Vol...
http://www.amazon.com/Animation-Stein...
http://www.amazon.com/Animation-Stein...
http://www.amazon.com/Animation-Stein...
Amazon.co.uk also have some of the Japanese import covers, which might be usable:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animation-Ste...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animation-Ste...
Amazon.co.jp has the lot (it might be they could be used to cover the different series?):
http://www.amazon.co.jp/STEINS-GATE-V...
So there are usable images, that it sounds like staff are open to making use of (the Amazon buy seems to have worked out nicely on this front). If we can thrash out the details of what is and isn't OK to use I could see us being able to get a thread up and running where we flag up entries with no image that have an image on Amazon that we can use.
What do staff think of that?
* It is easier for Wikipedia as they are a non-commercial entity.
* It is an income stream.
I'd also imagine it'd be a bit of a pain in the backside to sort out as the system would have to be more heavily automated than Wikipedia (which relies on users checking images and chasing up submitters, nominating images for deletion if the problems persist) to prevent people from sending in images that are too big or too high resolution, as a commercial entity if you infringe the second point of the license Wikipedia uses, "infringe on the commercial opportunities" then it could get legally problematic quickly). This would, in turn, result in a steady flow of people coming over here complaining that they've not been allowed to upload an image, etc.
So you'd need to get IMDB to create a new system that could generate hassle from a number of different directions, which would negatively impact their bottom line. Not something I'd ever want to run past a boss ;)
If we can get the ability to add public domain images then this in itself would be very handy in covering a lot of the gaps (so be sure to +1 that). In addition GC has mentioned another possible angle of attack on this problem:
or if the title is on sale on Amazon.com and they have a cover image for the DVD.
Amazon.com's home media covers aren't as good as a poster, but better than nothing:
www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n%3...
Although there are these
http://www.amazon.com/Animation-Stein...
http://www.amazon.com/Steins-Gate-Vol...
http://www.amazon.com/Animation-Stein...
http://www.amazon.com/Animation-Stein...
http://www.amazon.com/Animation-Stein...
Amazon.co.uk also have some of the Japanese import covers, which might be usable:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animation-Ste...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animation-Ste...
Amazon.co.jp has the lot (it might be they could be used to cover the different series?):
http://www.amazon.co.jp/STEINS-GATE-V...
So there are usable images, that it sounds like staff are open to making use of (the Amazon buy seems to have worked out nicely on this front). If we can thrash out the details of what is and isn't OK to use I could see us being able to get a thread up and running where we flag up entries with no image that have an image on Amazon that we can use.
What do staff think of that?
