Talk:Monogram Pictures

Image copyright problem with Image:Dillinger.jpg

The image Image:Dillinger.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

I wonder if Allied Artists Pictures Corporation should be merged here, since it's the same company under a different name. Rees11 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's now a redirect. but Allied Artists International is still a separate article. I guess it's a similar situation to General Motors, which doesn't get a separate article for the company restarted after bankruptcy and they should be merged. Horatio (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary of fair use rationale for movie poster in article

nonfree image removed

Dillinger (1945 film) poster

Licensing

{{Non-free poster}}

Fair use in Dillinger (1945 film)

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. It's a low resolution copy of a Film Poster / VHS or DVD Cover.
2. It doesn't limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the film in any way, in fact, it may encourage sales.
3. Because of the low resolution, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the artwork/image.
4. The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.
5. The image is significant because it was used to promoted a notable film.

Source

1. Derived from a digital capture (photo/scan) of the Film Poster/ VHS or DVD Cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the film company or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless.

No

• Nonfree imges are not allowed on talk pages.
• This image does not have a FUR for this article
  • A FUR for this article would more than likely not be accepted. It is not necessary and more decoration then assisting the reader of the understanding of the topic (company not a single release). Removing it from the page. A logo might be the best option if a nonfre image is used.
• FURs are for use in the file and not the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does non RS advert for Allied Artists International keep getting restored, and citation needed tags removed?

Why does unsourced advert for Allied Artists International keep getting restored? 173.75.81.106 (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You know why. Perhaps you should link to the other discussion, be more open here, or open an RfC for more input.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for straight answer. On reflection, my seemingly straightforward question now looks to me like it is bordering in WP:BAIT. But how to ask the straightforward question without at the same time baiting? 173.75.81.106 (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Why was the reliably sourced Sunset Boulevard studio location reverted?

Why was the reliably sourced Sunset Boulevard studio location reverted? 173.75.81.106 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked and replaced - the quote in the citation about the COS was undue and meaningless to this article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ownership of 1936-1946 library

Who owns the rights to the 1936-1946 film library? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.34.84 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeated incorrect insertion of information claiming Allied Artists International is related to Monogram Pictures

Regarding this edit, the source is a primary source, and cannot be used at Wikipedia per VP:RS. Furthermore, a trademark application is not a source as to the legal successor claims being made. Further still, checking the actual (primary) source shows that it does not in any way support the information in the edit. The edit will be undone. If edits persist in trying to claim Kimball Dean Richards and his Allied Artists International are in any way associated with this historic movie company, the Allied Artists International article will be brought to the administrator notice board as being not notable, entirely based on nonreliable sources, and containing assertions not supported by the sources, even if they were reliable, per the talk page comments made by many editors in that article. 64.134.232.30 (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The trademark cited is not an "application" as you assert, but rather an issued trademark as well as an original assignment of rights. Allied Artists International regained control of Monogram Pictures in 2008 as was demonstrated by the trademark assignments and actual registration of those trademarks by the United States Patent & Trademark Office. The USPTO is a government entity with a publicly available database that can be cited to establish the ownership of the Monogram Pictures trade name, trademark and its goodwill. I'm not sure why you're referencing the CEO of Allied Artists International as the reason you keep vandalizing the article. It's rather obvious you're the same vandal who had previously vandalized the Allied Artists International article in pursuit of some person vendetta. Please refrain from defacing this article or you will be reported to the administrators notice board as has occurred before and you will be banned again as a sock puppet of PPdd, KatieBoundary and numerous IP editors, as you were previously by Admin Toddst1.--108.38.57.177 (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Trademark transfer does not necessarily mean that a company is still operating; trademarks of defunct companies can still be transferred. This source does not support the stated fact: that Monogram is still an operating company. It looks more like Allied bought Monogram's library? This source merely states that the trademark itself is owned by Allied. Even the Allied International website does not state that Monogram is an active company. A second source will settle this, and I haven't found one via google. Given that so much of this page is wholly unsourced I am skeptical of the interpretation of this primary source. Henry chianski (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Godard/Breathless

I took out the part about Godard being influenced by Monogram movies based on this quote:

"Why Monogram? Godard never reviewed anything from that studio, which lasted from 1931 to 1953 and mainly produced cheap westerns and series like the Bowery Boys. But shooting on the fly and without sync sound, he wanted to express an alliance to an aesthetic related to impoverished budgets. So this wasn’t any sort of fan’s homage, as it would have been if it had come from one of the American movie brats; it was a critical statement of aims and boundaries."

BREATHLESS as Film Criticism, Jonathan Rosenbaum, April 18, 2007

Danwroy (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Histoire-d-O.jpg use

Dear, the image of the French poster you claim rights to is needed for the French article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_d%27O_(film) do you allow its use to enhance the article? --Mateouso (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment about Allied Artists International

Is Monogram Pictures verifiably a subsidiary of Allied Artists International? Henry chianski (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)