Data Policies > Show Main Images > Movie Posters

I'm against that. It would lead to confusion, because it would look like uploaded by mistake.
Besides that, policy does not need to specifically ban the movie posters, they kind of ban themselves :) Poster for movie is a poster for this particular movie, it's not a poster for TV series (even if it's related to this movie somehow). Not temporary not in any other way.

tnt wrote:

Besides that, policy does not need to specifically ban the movie posters, they kind of ban themselves :) Poster for movie is a poster for this particular movie, it's not a poster for TV series (even if it's related to this movie somehow). Not temporary not in any other way.

Going to have to disagree. Everyone has their own POV of course but, I see a book cover is listed as OK in policy but a movie poster is silent ... my automatic response is if it is not banned then it is OK. And if movie posters are not acceptable, how are book covers?

Also, lets not forget, all this is temporary until real series artwork is made available. Perhaps the rule, if allowed, should be it is noted as the movie poster and is just temporary.

SilverSurfer wrote:
Going to have to disagree. Everyone has their own POV of course but, I see a book cover is listed as OK in policy but a movie poster is silent ... my automatic response is if it is not banned then it is OK. And if movie posters are not acceptable, how are book covers?

Also, lets not forget, all this is temporary until real series artwork is made available. Perhaps the rule, if allowed, should be it is noted as the movie poster and is just temporary.

Well, I'll try to elaborate. Book is a different kind of media, movie is basically the same. Book do not have any actors associated with it, movie do, hence the possible confusion.

Anyhoo, IMO there's nothing wrong with show do not having any image until the proper poster is released. 

tnt wrote:
Well, I'll try to elaborate. Book is a different kind of media, movie is basically the same. Book do not have any actors associated with it, movie do, hence the possible confusion.

Anyhoo, IMO there's nothing wrong with show do not having any image until the proper poster is released. 

I can see your first point somewhat but would hope most people would understand it's a temp image ... 

On your second point though, the problem, IMHO, is new shows without images do not get front page exposure which, could possibly drum up some extra interest/ future viewers/buzz. Personally, I'll scan the new shows on the front page a couple times a day but only occasionally take the time to dig further despite previous digs turning up shows (without images) in which I'm interested.

SilverSurfer wrote:
I can see your first point somewhat but would hope most people would understand it's a temp image ... 

I wouldn't be so optimistic about most people)))) Some maybe...

On your second point though, the problem, IMHO, is new shows without images do not get front page exposure which, could possibly drum up some extra interest/ future viewers/buzz. Personally, I'll scan the new shows on the front page a couple times a day but only occasionally take the time to dig further despite previous digs turning up shows (without images) in which I'm interested.

So you basically suggesting to attract more people by using fake images as clickbaits?)))

tnt wrote:
I wouldn't be so optimistic about most people)))) Some maybe...

I know, thats how we got tRump but I digress ...

So you basically suggesting to attract more people by using fake images as clickbaits?)))

If I was going for clickbait to attract more viewers I'd suggest Playboy covers :) But I don't see them as fake, just a temporary representation of an upcoming series. In most cases, other than actors, the series will be very similar to the movie.

SilverSurfer wrote:
In most cases, other than actors, the series will be very similar to the movie.

in some cases maybe. but there's also prequels and complete reboots (with leads of different gender) which do not have basically anything in common with the original, apart from the name. 

what about series, based on other series? would you allow to use old posters for new shows, even temporarily? 

what about series, based on other series? would you allow to use old posters for new shows, even temporarily? 

If it gets them on the front page I'd allow posters from 1960s cereal boxes with the names crossed out and the new show name hand written in magic marker ...

OK, given there's been no further chat on this topic, I assume movie posters are acceptable as temporary images given they are not specifically forbidden.

I'm against it. Movie posters tend to have actors on them, and when those actors aren't in the show that'll be confusing.

@SilverSurfer wrote:
OK, given there's been no further chat on this topic, I assume movie posters are acceptable as temporary images given they are not specifically forbidden.

well, sorry to rain on your parade, but your assumption is incorrect. the list of acceptable posters is here https://www.tvmaze.com/faq/42/show-main-images, and movie poster is not one of them. since movie poster does not belong to tv show, it will be deleted, as any other irrelevant picture.

lack of response from tptb could mean that they're just busy with something else. maybe it's time to try a new @mention feature, to ask them directly? ;)

maybe @JuanArango will answer on their behalf? :)

You got my attention :)

From the top of my heart I would say that movie posters are not ok, but I can see a confusion that we do allow book covers.

I think this needs to be made more clear.

Agreed, movie posters should not be used. Will clarify this in the policy later! :)

@tnt wrote:
well, sorry to rain on your parade, but your assumption is incorrect. the list of acceptable posters is here https://www.tvmaze.com/faq/42/show-main-images, and movie poster is not one of them. since movie poster does not belong to tv show, it will be deleted, as any other irrelevant picture.

Then is it safe to say that if something (not just movie posters) is not mentioned in policy as acceptable then it is unacceptable? Silence is often considered consent, but should the assumption here be silence means no, if it is not specifically allowed, it is not allowed period?

@SilverSurfer wrote:
Then is it safe to say that if something (not just movie posters) is not mentioned in policy as acceptable then it is unacceptable? Silence is often considered consent, but should the assumption here be silence means no, if it is not specifically allowed, it is not allowed period?

 

IMO the safest option would be to ask for help or clarification when the policy does not give you a definitive answer to a particular situation. I think it's obvious that it is virtually impossible to cover all hypothetical situations in the policy, right?

Why don't you address this question directly to the authors of the policy? ;)

@SilverSurfer wrote:
Then is it safe to say that if something (not just movie posters) is not mentioned in policy as acceptable then it is unacceptable? Silence is often considered consent, but should the assumption here be silence means no, if it is not specifically allowed, it is not allowed period?

 

Silence can just mean that it's being discussed internally.

In this case, I just think it's been missed.

If a few days goes by with no replies, just bump it and @mention the relevant people.

Yep, you're not breaking any policy rules but agreed with tnt. It's best to ask when in doubt. And in this case. Movies are a bit too close to tv to be used as temporary placeholders.

@tnt wrote:
IMO the safest option would be to ask for help or clarification when the policy does not give you a definitive answer to a particular situation. I think it's obvious that it is virtually impossible to cover all hypothetical situations in the policy, right?

Of course, but if you have to check every time something may not be covered, or it's coverage is not clear, then you have a lot of cross talk and contributors may feel their time is better spent on other endeavors. Removing initiative and flexibility makes Jack a dull boy.

Why don't you address this question directly to the authors of the policy? ;)

I thought that is what the forums were supposed to, at least in part, handle.

@gazza911 wrote:
Silence can just mean that it's being discussed internally.

In this case, I just think it's been missed.

If a few days goes by with no replies, just bump it and @mention the relevant people.

The @mention will come in handy for such things now. My "OK, given there's been no further chat on this topic..." was a bump it back to the top and it got a response so, mission accomplished. :)