Template talk:Hastak

Is "Takaratomy" how they wish to be referred to? Given the two-line logo we've seen, I'd have guessed "Takara Tomy," or "TakaraTomy," or maybe even "Takara-Tomy." But I'd definitely have thought that "Tomy" would still be capitalized.--G.B. Blackrock 15:10, 7 April 2006 (PDT)

I think as-is is reasonable for the moment. It's not like the template is difficult to change as we learn a correct, different phrasing.

more at issue here is the weak language. "Gosh mister, we THINK we can do this, if it's alright with you." No, you ASSERT your rights- "We DO have a complete right to se this image under fair use!" The prior invites somene to tell yout o pull their images juzt 'cuz they feel like it- the latter says "You have to make a case that this excedes fair use, because up to a point we ARE COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED in using your images." -150.253.70.55 22:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I copied the wording from Wikipedia; if "it is believed" is good enough for them, I figure that it's good enough for us. I'm not a lawyer, so I'd like to avoid making assumptions about legal phrasing as much as I possibly can. --Suki Brits 20:08, 7 April 2006 (PDT)

True. I refered to wikipedia's phrasign for the general fair use template, which si a mish-mash of their general-purpose and franchose-specific ones. You can revert is if you like. -Derik 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Law Question

Okay, this has been bugging me for awhile- people are slapping this template on images which says "One of these two companies own it and we don't, we're using it only in this legally recognized capacity."

That's really a copyright disclaimer, where you make it clear you're not asserting you own the image. It's not a copyright notice saying who does own the image.

A copyright notice lists the holder, and the year that copyright dates from. The holders prefer both to be listed for 2 reasons.

1. So someone whishing to reproduce that image in a non-fair-use manner can contact the identified holder in order to pay them.
2. The year controls how long it is until their copyright on this image lapses.

Now, I always thought we were required to list the actual holder and the year the copyright stems from, and the {{hastak}} template was just boilerplate to go above that, explaining that this use falls under fair use.

Am I wrong? Are we not required to do that? Or is this template just a copyright disclaimer, and we're not actually including copyright information on pictures? -Derik 02:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)