Frequently asked questions Q1: Why isn't there a picture of the album cover art?
All the other articles have pictures of the cover art!
A1: The main feature of the album cover art is a photo that was used without permission, in violation of U.S. and international copyright law. Q2: But we could just say that it's "fair use".
A2: The normal
fair use rules for album cover art do not apply when the cover art is itself a
copyright violation. In particular, the
relevant Wikipedia policy says that fair use is only acceptable if the image was originally "published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder". This mandatory requirement cannot be met for this image, because it has never been published or publicly displayed by or with permission from the copyright holders. Q3: You mean the cover art image wasn't rejected because of the distressing content?
A3: It is true that many editors over the years have objected to this image as a violation of the subject's
moral rights,
personality rights, and
privacy rights. And because
Wikipedia is not censored, content is not removed solely because it is objectionable. However, the
non-free content criteria also applies, regardless of the content. See
the above question for an explanation on why the non-free content criteria disallows Wikipedia to use the image. Q4: Can I put in an external link to a picture of it?
A4: No. Adding an
external link to a copyright violation is a
serious violation of one of Wikipedia's major legal policies. Q5: Who owns the copyright to the photo?
A5: The copyright is held by the family of the man pictured in the photo, who have publicly stated that its use anywhere, for any purpose, has never been authorized. Q6: What should I do if someone adds the picture to the article again?
A6: Tag the file for deletion as {{
db-repost}}, as "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". The admins should be able to find the
files for deletion discussion through
the logs for one of the prior images. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Dawn of the Black Hearts picture should be removed, it is the ACTUAL picture of the lead singer after he committed suicide, therefore is very disrespectful and unappreciated.
But it's also the ACTUAL cover.
picture must not be removed!
Well, given that it does depict a person with his skull blown open, wrists slit, and what looks to be bits of brain sitting beside him, the picture should probably be behind some kind of warning, since it is graphic by any standards. What about taking down this image and providing an off-site link (with a fair warning)? Its about the same thing that is done here with articles on intrinsically disturbing (visually, that is) things like the harlequin fetus, to use one example.
It's an album cover and it has everything to do with the subject matter so it stays. Get over it. Wikipedia and life in general are not censored for the squeamish. Sion 10:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess if you're the kind of person who is offended by this, you probably shouldn't be listening to Mayhem anyway. 72.12.163.230 07:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Brains are cool to look at.
the juggreserection
13:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, that's about the coolest album cover EVER! But seriously, think about this for a moment. Where does it say you can't have a picture of a dead person on Wikipedia? Why is it alright to write about death but not show a picture? Should pictures of concentration camps be censored too? Paintings of Jesus' crucification? Should we only record history that you think is appropriate? -- 76.16.71.212 ( talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored you dipshit. 97.97.149.74 ( talk) 05:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The photo is in very poor taste, the singer's family is not happy with it. I'd like to keep the site child-safe if possible, this photo is sensationalistic and has no informational value. Besides, even though the photographer is dead, the photo is not public domain, and it was used on the bootleg without permission or payment, so any fair use rationale for reproducing the cover is moot. I remove the photo now, I expect it to be up again in ten minutes. 88.89.218.18 ( talk) 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The photo IS public domain without a doubt. Please show me evidence the photo has a copyright on it. Also I wouldn't necessarily say "without permission" as Euronymous was the one who sent the photo to the record label. 2A00:23C0:5F86:8C00:21DE:F92D:E359:A54E ( talk) 18:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If you can show me where Ohlin's family objects to the photo, I'll be content. But keep this in mind- it wasn't them who took it, it was one of the people from Mayhem (probably Aarseth, but no one really knows), so they'd have the rights to it. And if we can show pictures of some bastard on a cross, why not show a picture of a suicide? And finally, people aren't going to accidentally stumble across this page, it's not easy to find.
With all that said, if there really is something you have about Ohlin's family objecting to it, I'd really like to see it. Paragon of Arctic Winter Nights ( talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a picture from an interview with Pelle's brother, Anders, included in 2016's Peaceville's release of "Live in Zeitz", where he asks for the picture not to be spread. https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/13466483_1824520974435755_6989087685867764171_n.jpg?oh=f1e64f9bfff3f0aa2242cbe85cefc60b&oe=58984095&__gda__=1486736837_6403e0d490cf6abdfaabe874baece92b
Also, the notes in the official release of his first band, Morbid - "Year of the Goat", released by surviving band mates, clearly says:"No thanks to the distributors and buyers of the post-mortem pic. Fuck you." https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t31.0-8/333634_296365473723938_1358387437_o.jpg
Wikipedia should respect the wishes of his family and friends, and stop spreading this picture. DL1982 ( talk) 07:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The picture should be removed Sobzz ( talk) 19:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
His brother, Anders, is fighting to remove the image from internat according to: https://www.nrk.no/det-ar-jag-som-ar-doden-1.15117277 , therefore, the picture should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante58x ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@ STATicVapor: / @ Markworthen: sorry to bother you guys but I need someone who is good with album articles to confirm here if this album cover is somehow now a "copyright violation", or is it fair use like every other album cover ever uploaded to Wikipedia? Someone please explain this because that would be actually amazing how this specific album cover is somehow breaching "copyright". Second Skin ( talk) 07:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no copyright holder to the image as the creator of the image Euronymous who also never registered it for copyright is deceased. Ohlin's family do not own the copyright to the image just because their family member is in the image. That's not how copyright law works. As per copyright law you don't own photos taken of yourself or your family by default. The creator of the image is always the copyright holder unless rights are sold or given to someone else. What evidence do you have that Ohlin's family own the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 ( talk) 18:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. You can't just claim "we didn't make it up". You need to provide a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 ( talk) 12:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Except it wasn't. Aarseth's father destroyed the images of Dead he found in his apartment. There was no "transferring of copyright" there was only destruction and the last surviving photograph from the photoset didn't surface until 1995 2 years after Aarseth's death and 2 years after the images were destroyed. How can they copyright something they destroyed? Mauricio "Bull Metal" Botero was given one of the photos from the set by Aarseth before his death. Neither Aarseth or Ohlin's family would have had the particular image used on the album in their possession. They would have had other photos from the photoset but not the particular image used on Dawn. How can they have copyright on something the copyright owner gave away to someone else? No evidence has been provided for the claim "It was legally transferred to Ohlin's family from Aarseth's estate, as pointed out above." Citation needed! Show us an article confirming this to be the case, show us the copyright registration record, show us the court case regarding the estate which would be on public record etc. Where's the proof the image is copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 ( talk) 12:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
When you type in "dawn of the black hearts" it takes you to Mayhem. I'd fix it but I dunno how. Penguinwithin ( talk) 03:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed that :) Cic ( talk) 15:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no information regarding the fact that the knife is sitting over the shotgun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.170.175.252 ( talk) 10:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This is purely speculation on my part, but I wouldn't put moving stuff around past someone who would take a picture like this. Or maybe it landed like that somehow. Strange things happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.253.190 ( talk) 11:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Some research (read: googling) suggests that's exactly what happen; the photographer moved some stuff around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.253.190 ( talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a drawing to me. Any evidence that this is actually a photo, and if so, is there any explanation as to its strange quality? 175.38.194.229 ( talk) 02:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The picture Wikipedia uses is a low quality version and the not the original cover (The original says "The Dawn of the Black Hearts" not "Dawn of the Black Hearts"). Remember no one has access to the original photo so any subsequent pressings have scanned the photo from another source which often vary in quality. The original Vinyl (which is the best quality you will ever find the picture in) is very difficult to get a hold of now so most new editions of the album are a scan of a scan of a scan and so on. If you look at the original Vinyl it's unmistakably a real photograph. 2A00:23C0:5F86:8C00:21DE:F92D:E359:A54E ( talk) 17:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dawn of the Black Hearts. 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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is specifically about the original pressing which the title is "The Dawn of the Black Hearts". Only poor quality copies where the cover is a scan of a scan of a scan and the font is standard black Mayhem font use the alternate title "Dawn of the Black Hearts". 2A00:23C0:5F86:8C00:21DE:F92D:E359:A54E ( talk) 18:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys, for a few months I've been wondering about whether this article should last any longer. The whole reason why Mayhem considered this album, a bootleg album that was never commercially released, one of their own, and why the article for this album even exists is because of the cover art of Dead being, well, dead (I know, poor taste, but you know what I'm saying). Taking photos of a dead body is more or less as horrid as taking photos of someone nude without asking, but that photo became that cover art and a significant part of the band's history, so not much to do there. Anyway, the cover art was taken down from the article due to a copyright violation, and it's probably just as well that the article stays like this. Besides that, there were severe back-and-forth arguments over whether or not the image should be included, citing concerns for graphic morbidity, disrespect, etc. Of course, Wikipedia is not censored, which is why even potentially offensive material can be accepted and must stay as long as it's in context with the topic, and those include a dead body, nudity (even underage), racial slurs, portrayal of Islamic religious figures, etc. The only reason anything should be censored here is if the offensive material is out of context and straight-up vandalism, violating copyright or privacy, and slanderous to living persons. However, even with a new submission that doesn't violate copyright, that cover art would still induce those disruptive arguments. Since bootlegs that remain unofficial aren't usually welcome here, and the cover art is basically the whole purpose of this article, it has to go. But there is a handful of reliable sources here, so it can't be completely deleted, which I suggested merging this article to the Mayhem one. Please take the time to consider all this. Thanks.... SirZPthundergod9001 ( talk) 02:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the cover image!
Per WP:NOTCENSORED, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive". If someone thinks this important Wikipedia policy should not be applied to this article, please start a WP:RFC to reach a consensus before removing it again.
The file now has a fair use rationale. If someone disagrees with it, the issue should be taken to WP:FFD.
Also, who wrote the "Frequently asked questions" at the top of this talk page? Surely, such a section should only be written based on a strong consensus? It is also erroneous, since the statement "The copyright is held by the family of the man pictured in the photo" is not true. The original creator always holds the copyright, if there is not an explicit statement that they transfer it to someone else. Or can someone find such a statement, made by Euronymous?
37.197.180.150 ( talk) 16:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I removed the "FAQ" from the page as it's factually incorrect how copyright works. Also fun fact I should add: while checking the edit history for the "FAQ", two different users were reverted here and here after being very reasonable with their questionable nature regarding how this indeed is not a truthful way that copyright works, after they made both their edits they were reverted - the second time it happened the page was then permanently protected from any further editing. There is definitely something extremely sus going on here in that any time a person has tried to restore the image from the page they're forced back out and any questioning for their reasons for such are immediately silenced by callous editors who will blatantly lie about "copyright" to fit their narrative and agenda, and obviously that's not at all unjust behavior or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.202.153.67 ( talk) 20:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The FAQ states that the copyright owner of the photo is "the family of [Dead]", but based on my (admittedly little) knowledge of copyright law, shouldn't the copyright owner be Euronymous because he was the one who took the photos? If so, we should correct it. Either way, it seems the cover art won't come back up because it seems Bull Metal wasn't given permission from either Dead nor Euronymous (as is the nature of bootlegs). FromtheEndofElo ( talk) 04:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I see that in the FAQ and other comments, it's said that the cover itself is a copyvio due to it being used for a bootleg album.
My 2 cents is that the album cover is a distinct work from the album itself, which IS a copyvio.
Also, nobody answered this question, which in my opinion is valid, because nowhere is it explained why Death's family own the copyright and not Euronymous. -- QuickQuokka [ talk • contribs 11:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Should the cover art for the one that peacevile did for the 2019 official release be used? 2A02:C7C:98A0:6F00:201E:6672:F57D:151E ( talk) 18:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Frequently asked questions Q1: Why isn't there a picture of the album cover art?
All the other articles have pictures of the cover art!
A1: The main feature of the album cover art is a photo that was used without permission, in violation of U.S. and international copyright law. Q2: But we could just say that it's "fair use".
A2: The normal
fair use rules for album cover art do not apply when the cover art is itself a
copyright violation. In particular, the
relevant Wikipedia policy says that fair use is only acceptable if the image was originally "published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder". This mandatory requirement cannot be met for this image, because it has never been published or publicly displayed by or with permission from the copyright holders. Q3: You mean the cover art image wasn't rejected because of the distressing content?
A3: It is true that many editors over the years have objected to this image as a violation of the subject's
moral rights,
personality rights, and
privacy rights. And because
Wikipedia is not censored, content is not removed solely because it is objectionable. However, the
non-free content criteria also applies, regardless of the content. See
the above question for an explanation on why the non-free content criteria disallows Wikipedia to use the image. Q4: Can I put in an external link to a picture of it?
A4: No. Adding an
external link to a copyright violation is a
serious violation of one of Wikipedia's major legal policies. Q5: Who owns the copyright to the photo?
A5: The copyright is held by the family of the man pictured in the photo, who have publicly stated that its use anywhere, for any purpose, has never been authorized. Q6: What should I do if someone adds the picture to the article again?
A6: Tag the file for deletion as {{
db-repost}}, as "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". The admins should be able to find the
files for deletion discussion through
the logs for one of the prior images. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Dawn of the Black Hearts picture should be removed, it is the ACTUAL picture of the lead singer after he committed suicide, therefore is very disrespectful and unappreciated.
But it's also the ACTUAL cover.
picture must not be removed!
Well, given that it does depict a person with his skull blown open, wrists slit, and what looks to be bits of brain sitting beside him, the picture should probably be behind some kind of warning, since it is graphic by any standards. What about taking down this image and providing an off-site link (with a fair warning)? Its about the same thing that is done here with articles on intrinsically disturbing (visually, that is) things like the harlequin fetus, to use one example.
It's an album cover and it has everything to do with the subject matter so it stays. Get over it. Wikipedia and life in general are not censored for the squeamish. Sion 10:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess if you're the kind of person who is offended by this, you probably shouldn't be listening to Mayhem anyway. 72.12.163.230 07:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Brains are cool to look at.
the juggreserection
13:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, that's about the coolest album cover EVER! But seriously, think about this for a moment. Where does it say you can't have a picture of a dead person on Wikipedia? Why is it alright to write about death but not show a picture? Should pictures of concentration camps be censored too? Paintings of Jesus' crucification? Should we only record history that you think is appropriate? -- 76.16.71.212 ( talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored you dipshit. 97.97.149.74 ( talk) 05:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The photo is in very poor taste, the singer's family is not happy with it. I'd like to keep the site child-safe if possible, this photo is sensationalistic and has no informational value. Besides, even though the photographer is dead, the photo is not public domain, and it was used on the bootleg without permission or payment, so any fair use rationale for reproducing the cover is moot. I remove the photo now, I expect it to be up again in ten minutes. 88.89.218.18 ( talk) 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The photo IS public domain without a doubt. Please show me evidence the photo has a copyright on it. Also I wouldn't necessarily say "without permission" as Euronymous was the one who sent the photo to the record label. 2A00:23C0:5F86:8C00:21DE:F92D:E359:A54E ( talk) 18:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If you can show me where Ohlin's family objects to the photo, I'll be content. But keep this in mind- it wasn't them who took it, it was one of the people from Mayhem (probably Aarseth, but no one really knows), so they'd have the rights to it. And if we can show pictures of some bastard on a cross, why not show a picture of a suicide? And finally, people aren't going to accidentally stumble across this page, it's not easy to find.
With all that said, if there really is something you have about Ohlin's family objecting to it, I'd really like to see it. Paragon of Arctic Winter Nights ( talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a picture from an interview with Pelle's brother, Anders, included in 2016's Peaceville's release of "Live in Zeitz", where he asks for the picture not to be spread. https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/13466483_1824520974435755_6989087685867764171_n.jpg?oh=f1e64f9bfff3f0aa2242cbe85cefc60b&oe=58984095&__gda__=1486736837_6403e0d490cf6abdfaabe874baece92b
Also, the notes in the official release of his first band, Morbid - "Year of the Goat", released by surviving band mates, clearly says:"No thanks to the distributors and buyers of the post-mortem pic. Fuck you." https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t31.0-8/333634_296365473723938_1358387437_o.jpg
Wikipedia should respect the wishes of his family and friends, and stop spreading this picture. DL1982 ( talk) 07:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The picture should be removed Sobzz ( talk) 19:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
His brother, Anders, is fighting to remove the image from internat according to: https://www.nrk.no/det-ar-jag-som-ar-doden-1.15117277 , therefore, the picture should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante58x ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@ STATicVapor: / @ Markworthen: sorry to bother you guys but I need someone who is good with album articles to confirm here if this album cover is somehow now a "copyright violation", or is it fair use like every other album cover ever uploaded to Wikipedia? Someone please explain this because that would be actually amazing how this specific album cover is somehow breaching "copyright". Second Skin ( talk) 07:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no copyright holder to the image as the creator of the image Euronymous who also never registered it for copyright is deceased. Ohlin's family do not own the copyright to the image just because their family member is in the image. That's not how copyright law works. As per copyright law you don't own photos taken of yourself or your family by default. The creator of the image is always the copyright holder unless rights are sold or given to someone else. What evidence do you have that Ohlin's family own the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 ( talk) 18:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. You can't just claim "we didn't make it up". You need to provide a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 ( talk) 12:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Except it wasn't. Aarseth's father destroyed the images of Dead he found in his apartment. There was no "transferring of copyright" there was only destruction and the last surviving photograph from the photoset didn't surface until 1995 2 years after Aarseth's death and 2 years after the images were destroyed. How can they copyright something they destroyed? Mauricio "Bull Metal" Botero was given one of the photos from the set by Aarseth before his death. Neither Aarseth or Ohlin's family would have had the particular image used on the album in their possession. They would have had other photos from the photoset but not the particular image used on Dawn. How can they have copyright on something the copyright owner gave away to someone else? No evidence has been provided for the claim "It was legally transferred to Ohlin's family from Aarseth's estate, as pointed out above." Citation needed! Show us an article confirming this to be the case, show us the copyright registration record, show us the court case regarding the estate which would be on public record etc. Where's the proof the image is copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 ( talk) 12:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
When you type in "dawn of the black hearts" it takes you to Mayhem. I'd fix it but I dunno how. Penguinwithin ( talk) 03:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed that :) Cic ( talk) 15:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no information regarding the fact that the knife is sitting over the shotgun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.170.175.252 ( talk) 10:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This is purely speculation on my part, but I wouldn't put moving stuff around past someone who would take a picture like this. Or maybe it landed like that somehow. Strange things happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.253.190 ( talk) 11:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Some research (read: googling) suggests that's exactly what happen; the photographer moved some stuff around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.253.190 ( talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a drawing to me. Any evidence that this is actually a photo, and if so, is there any explanation as to its strange quality? 175.38.194.229 ( talk) 02:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The picture Wikipedia uses is a low quality version and the not the original cover (The original says "The Dawn of the Black Hearts" not "Dawn of the Black Hearts"). Remember no one has access to the original photo so any subsequent pressings have scanned the photo from another source which often vary in quality. The original Vinyl (which is the best quality you will ever find the picture in) is very difficult to get a hold of now so most new editions of the album are a scan of a scan of a scan and so on. If you look at the original Vinyl it's unmistakably a real photograph. 2A00:23C0:5F86:8C00:21DE:F92D:E359:A54E ( talk) 17:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dawn of the Black Hearts. 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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is specifically about the original pressing which the title is "The Dawn of the Black Hearts". Only poor quality copies where the cover is a scan of a scan of a scan and the font is standard black Mayhem font use the alternate title "Dawn of the Black Hearts". 2A00:23C0:5F86:8C00:21DE:F92D:E359:A54E ( talk) 18:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys, for a few months I've been wondering about whether this article should last any longer. The whole reason why Mayhem considered this album, a bootleg album that was never commercially released, one of their own, and why the article for this album even exists is because of the cover art of Dead being, well, dead (I know, poor taste, but you know what I'm saying). Taking photos of a dead body is more or less as horrid as taking photos of someone nude without asking, but that photo became that cover art and a significant part of the band's history, so not much to do there. Anyway, the cover art was taken down from the article due to a copyright violation, and it's probably just as well that the article stays like this. Besides that, there were severe back-and-forth arguments over whether or not the image should be included, citing concerns for graphic morbidity, disrespect, etc. Of course, Wikipedia is not censored, which is why even potentially offensive material can be accepted and must stay as long as it's in context with the topic, and those include a dead body, nudity (even underage), racial slurs, portrayal of Islamic religious figures, etc. The only reason anything should be censored here is if the offensive material is out of context and straight-up vandalism, violating copyright or privacy, and slanderous to living persons. However, even with a new submission that doesn't violate copyright, that cover art would still induce those disruptive arguments. Since bootlegs that remain unofficial aren't usually welcome here, and the cover art is basically the whole purpose of this article, it has to go. But there is a handful of reliable sources here, so it can't be completely deleted, which I suggested merging this article to the Mayhem one. Please take the time to consider all this. Thanks.... SirZPthundergod9001 ( talk) 02:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the cover image!
Per WP:NOTCENSORED, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive". If someone thinks this important Wikipedia policy should not be applied to this article, please start a WP:RFC to reach a consensus before removing it again.
The file now has a fair use rationale. If someone disagrees with it, the issue should be taken to WP:FFD.
Also, who wrote the "Frequently asked questions" at the top of this talk page? Surely, such a section should only be written based on a strong consensus? It is also erroneous, since the statement "The copyright is held by the family of the man pictured in the photo" is not true. The original creator always holds the copyright, if there is not an explicit statement that they transfer it to someone else. Or can someone find such a statement, made by Euronymous?
37.197.180.150 ( talk) 16:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I removed the "FAQ" from the page as it's factually incorrect how copyright works. Also fun fact I should add: while checking the edit history for the "FAQ", two different users were reverted here and here after being very reasonable with their questionable nature regarding how this indeed is not a truthful way that copyright works, after they made both their edits they were reverted - the second time it happened the page was then permanently protected from any further editing. There is definitely something extremely sus going on here in that any time a person has tried to restore the image from the page they're forced back out and any questioning for their reasons for such are immediately silenced by callous editors who will blatantly lie about "copyright" to fit their narrative and agenda, and obviously that's not at all unjust behavior or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.202.153.67 ( talk) 20:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The FAQ states that the copyright owner of the photo is "the family of [Dead]", but based on my (admittedly little) knowledge of copyright law, shouldn't the copyright owner be Euronymous because he was the one who took the photos? If so, we should correct it. Either way, it seems the cover art won't come back up because it seems Bull Metal wasn't given permission from either Dead nor Euronymous (as is the nature of bootlegs). FromtheEndofElo ( talk) 04:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I see that in the FAQ and other comments, it's said that the cover itself is a copyvio due to it being used for a bootleg album.
My 2 cents is that the album cover is a distinct work from the album itself, which IS a copyvio.
Also, nobody answered this question, which in my opinion is valid, because nowhere is it explained why Death's family own the copyright and not Euronymous. -- QuickQuokka [ talk • contribs 11:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Should the cover art for the one that peacevile did for the 2019 official release be used? 2A02:C7C:98A0:6F00:201E:6672:F57D:151E ( talk) 18:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)