File talk:Guild The Order Of Dii banner.jpg

Not CR-contested? Strange. Ɲ oɕʈɋɽɕɧ  11:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Licencing
From Blizzard's legal page "Blizzard Entertainment® hereby grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable and non- assignable license to use and display, for home, noncommercial and personal use only, one copy of any material and/or software that you may download from this site, including, but not limited to, any files, codes, audio or images incorporated in or generated by the software (collectively the "Downloaded Content") provided, however, that you must include or maintain all copyright and other notices contained or associated with such Downloaded Content. You acknowledge and agree that you may not sublicense, assign or otherwise transfer this license or the Downloaded Content and that no title to the Downloaded Content has been or will be transferred to you from Blizzard Entertainment® or anyone else. You also agree that you will not alter, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer or otherwise modify the Downloaded Content.

Also, we reserve the right to revoke this limited use license at any time, for any reason, and at the sole discretion of Blizzard Entertainment®. You may not use our materials on sites that feature defamatory pornographic, or inflammatory content, including, but not limited to, hacks and cheats for any of our games or any other content that Blizzard Entertainment® find objectionable or unlawful."

Copyright notice:
 * Diablo® II: Lord of Destruction®
 * ©2001 Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved. Diablo, Lord of Destruction and Blizzard Entertainment are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries

Thus, Blizzard grants permission to use their images for fan-based non-commercial use, which this is. I believe the GFDL licence is in accordance with this, since even though it allows commercial use, it must contain and comply with this original copyright notice. If not though, I believe a similar notice as the Arenanet image template should be permissible. The point is that Blizzard does explicitly allow fans to use their images for non-commercial use, so it is not copyvio. --Lensor ( talk ) 09:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) . ArenaNet has given the community a free hand with this wiki in everything BUT copyright. They do not want ANY material on this wiki that is not ArenaNet owned, Public Domain, or Original content (contributor copyright). This is the way it's always been here. -- Wyn  talk  09:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, it can't legally be given GFDL license as Blizzard still retains the copyright. Therefore, it is not usable here. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that Anet "owns" the Wiki, but under what legal framework can Anet images use a "not released under GFDL" tag, and other images can not? --Lensor ( talk ) 09:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See GWW:COPY "Incompatible content sources ~ Content from other, non-GFDL sources (regardless of whether fair use applies)."
 * Basically, you as a GWW contributor do not have the legal right to release someone else's copyrighted work under a GFDL license. Now, if Blizzard were to grant GFDL licensing to their images (which they won't) you could use them. Otherwise, you can't. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  09:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As for what legal framework this falls under, I would recommend reading Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights which was written by the ArenaNet legal department. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  09:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I read it, but it is still does not explain how it is legal to have a GFDL wiki with "some" content tagged as not released under GFDL (regardless of source). As in, not from Anet's point of view, but from GFDL's. Ah well, if it must be deleted so be it, even though I do find it lame to only allow Anet images to use a "not relased under GFDL" tag. --Lensor ( talk ) 10:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, Ive uploaded another version that should be ok. --Lensor ( talk ) 11:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)