Category talk:Suspected copyright violations

Time limit?
Is there some set time that we should allow these articles to remain here before deleting them? As they are (suspected) copyright violations I don't think they should remain indefinitely. Personally I don't think they should remain longer than a week. --Rainith 05:04, 19 February 2007 (PST)
 * A week is good, less (3 days?) would be better if it is practical in allowing time for viewing. &mdash; Skuld 05:06, 19 February 2007 (PST)
 * It seems like the originally intended process (from reading Template:copyvio) is to just leave the template up and blank the rest of the article until a non-violating version is ready. I'll start blanking the ones that weren't -- is that enough to mitigate the copyright violations until deletion policy is hashed out? --Rezyk 11:10, 19 February 2007 (PST)
 * You can't violate copyright if there is nothing there, so yes, blanking is the best temporary solution other than deleting. &mdash; Gares 11:26, 19 February 2007 (PST)
 * Actually that doesn't solve the problem at all. The reason behind the template was to force the new article onto a different page, which would then be moved over to the original page, thus deleting the copyright violation.  As it is now, the information is still easily accessible in the history, and it is still in violation of copyright.  --Rainith 18:06, 19 February 2007 (PST)

Screencaps?
I don't believe the original "screen capturer" has any legal right to the image – they remain (intellectual) property of ArenaNet. As such, no screen capture can ever be a copyvio, since we have explicit permission from ArenaNet to use their content. Thoughts? &mdash;Tanaric 10:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm pretty clear that all we need do is tag screen captures, whether cropped or full size, with and we're fine. --Rohar ( talk|contribs ) 10:12, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Just to be explicit, should that be used even with screencaptures that were initially posted on the GuildWiki by random users and were ported here without the original uploader's consent or even knowledge? &mdash;Tanaric 10:18, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 * That point did strike me when I tagged one yesterday. In retrospect the above must be true - I think with screen caps it's less a question of copyright and more a question of ethics. It is likely a point of pride to many users that a particular page has a picture of "their" character in a prominent position - if it's ripped off the other wiki there is no uploader information, so to that user, it feels like theft. It's almost an intellectual property thing :) -- Snog  rat [[Image:User Snograt signature.png]] 11:12, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Consider who were the original "owners" of the material posted to the old Wiki. The EULA would suggest that the material remained the intellectual property of Arenanet and used with permission.  Therefore, one would presume thats its legitimate to reuse those images herein provided the Anet copyright tags are used.  In regard to a user feeling like he was "ripped off", he would have to have assumed ownership of the image in the first place, which is  obviously an incorrect assumption.  That being said, if you want to play it safe, delete the images for copyvio, but I believe we're perfectly within our rights to use them. --Rohar ( talk|contribs ) 16:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I just thought of something else. If a user modified a screen shot to add text, icons, graphics, insets, or the like, then those additions would be the users intellectual property and the image should therefore be copyvio deleted. --Rohar ( talk|contribs ) 16:31, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

anyone gonna delete?
Some of these have been in here for a month like Salvage Item and To Kryta: The Ice Cave. -Smurf 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks for notifying me. &mdash;Tanaric 07:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)