Guild Wars Wiki talk:Copyrights/A1

Copyright

Although discussion is still taking place on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Official content about in-game content, I think we should have a statement on this page along the lines of "All content is GFDL, except for content copied from in-game, including but not limited to images and in-game dialog, which are Copyright to their original creators, NCSoft, or ArenaNet" --Barek 07:56, 9 February 2007 (PST)

We'll need to do something about the copyright line. As people start to upload ArenaNet content, we'll have content here copyrighted by ArenaNet, content copyrighted by NCsoft, and content copyrighted by individual contributors. --Mike O'Brien 15:22, 23 February 2007 (PST)

For the time being, I am going to remove the two copyright lines from the page. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't put something back up, but it will prevent confusion until the official policy gets finalized for the topic. --Emily Diehl 18:30, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Please license under later versions of GFDL too!

With the recent changes to licensing, I strongly suggest also expanding the licensing of original user content from GFDL version 1.2 to GFDL version 1.2 and all later versions, in order to take advantage of mechanisms in section 10 of the GFDL ("future revisions of this license"). This is the standard and safer way to use the license; it keeps it up-to-date and protects against some potentially problematic interpretations. The current model of treating game content as non-GFDL heightens the importance of this protection, since we will have to rely on being able to treat a page with embedded game content as an "aggregation with independent works" rather than a single "derivative document". (See this sample image copyright case for an analogous example.) To be really thorough, I'd suggest this for this article:

Content provided by individual contributors, which is original and does not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of any third party, is available under the GNU Free Documentation License. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included at Guild Wars Wiki:GNU Free Documentation License.

Much of this text is verbatim from the license's addendum. --Rezyk 06:32, 24 February 2007 (EST)

It may be too late for us to do this nondisruptively. Users who have uploaded content to this site since it started agreed to release their content under the terms of GFDL 1.2. They didn't agree to release their content under the terms of GFDL 1.2 and all later versions. -- Mike O'Brien 15:30, 28 February 2007 (EST)

There are some things we can try, to do this nondisruptively:

• Modify the edit page copyrightwarning to specify "you agree to ... GFDL 1.2 and all later versions". This lets you keep your current license claims and won't retroactively affect past contributions, but sets all future contributions to be ready for a switch. Then we'll only be left with dealing with the past contributions.
• Create a sign-up form / project to get past contributors to agree to "GFDL 1.2 and all later versions" for their old contributions/modifications. (Perhaps with a notice on the main page.) Hopefully we can get enough agree-ers such that it's manageable to recreate the remaining stuff that isn't covered. Note that the contributions copied directly from GuildWiki (and was licensed under GFDL there) is generally already covered.
• If the above pulls through, then we can make the full license change. If not, we can give up on it and stick with GFDL 1.2 only, or even opt to change the license to note the date of shift (GFDL 1.2 before, GFDL 1.2+ after).

This approach should not interfere with our current operation, and can even be managed completely by the users. However, I think we would need a go-ahead signal from ArenaNet, indicating that you are interested in this change if we can pull it off. (TBH, I don't even know if I've succeeded in convincing anyone that this change is good for the wiki yet; if it's only myself who wants this, it surely won't happen.) --Rezyk 17:24, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Images

I think we need a template to add to images that are uploaded by Arenanet staff (ie the armor and weapon renders) so that people don't download them and use them elsewhere. I would write it but I wouldn't know what it should contain. Any volunteers? - BeXoR 05:12, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I have mocked up Template:Arenanet image. It's just a shorter version of the clause in the copyright article. Judging by the text used in the copyright article, this template should really be included on all images from the game, not just those uploaded by ArenaNet. LordBiro 08:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm cool with adding it to every image. We can use Special:Uncategorizedimages to keep an eye on things. There are also some other image categories. - BeXoR 09:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Nice template, gj! Yes, it would make sense in light of the copyright issues to add it to all in-game images, too Fox 09:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What is classed as an in-game image? That wouldn't include things like the quest or mission walkthroughs where I have "added value" to the in-game content would it? 'Cuz you know if those are still consider copyright by Anet I'll just copy the versions from Guildwiki. :) --Aspectacle 21:09, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It says on the project page anything from the game or websites, etc, belongs to ANet and is not released under GFDL. What quest or mission walkthrough images with your "added value" are you referring to? - BeXoR 21:14, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the question is about images like this one. I am curious as to the answer too. --Rainith 21:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It's still taken from in game so it is an Anet image. GFDL contributions must be wholly the contributor's work. - BeXoR 21:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Another example; [1]. My path through the mission, and my marking of the interesting points on the map is "work" and certainly takes effort to do. I can't claim copyright to the underlying map, that I acknowledge, but the extra dots I put on the maps are my creative contribution. This is the assumption I've been working under taking, or not, images from Guild Wiki, that the effort that someone else has made collecting the image makes at least the marks on that image copyright to the person that made it.

I don't think those edits are copyright to ArenaNet and the images should not be marked as if they are. --Aspectacle 22:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

They should be marked as such, because you cannot take copyright from Anet, whether you altered the image or not. Your contribution to the image is GFDL, but the underlying in game image is not, and you cannot combine the licenses as such. When you contribute work to the wiki that consists of ANet's intellectual property, whether or not it is mixed with some of your own, you have to understand that you are freely giving your work, but ANet's work will always be under copyright. As such, those images can never be released under GFDL because they never belonged to the person that modified them. Your contribution is noted in the history of a page or the upload log. In fact, modifying those images may be in breach of copyright as it is. - BeXoR 22:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Let me try to be clearer. For a contribution to be GFDL it has to be completely original for you to say yes, I own the copyright to this material, and I am releasing it under GFDL. ANet content isn't released under GFDL, so you cannot say I modified this image and claim copyright. The Anet image template simply states that the image isn't released under GFDL because it is their intellectual property, and modifying said images does not remove their claim to ownership of the image. I could put a dot of paint on the Mona Lisa and say I contributed, but the work would always be da Vinci's property, and I couldn't say I released it into public domain. And technically users shouldn't upload any images because it they are a direct copy of copyright information (all use contributions must be original and not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of any third party), and uploading it with your username implies that the image is yours - and that is where the template comes into play. Because we need to document the game, anything that is from in game has a disclaimer that says it belongs to Anet. With articles, it would be a bit silly to put a template on every article, although citing in game text would have been nice. With images, people can be tempted to download them and use them elsewhere, which is why the template is handy. - BeXoR 23:08, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

(Edit Conflict!)I'd quote fair use in my defense for any violation, because I'm not diminishing the value of ArenaNet's work by adding those marks, I'm enhancing it and I'm not using it for any commercial gain.

So basically ArenaNets copyright on map is greater than my GFDL contribution, and therefore should not be copied for commercial gain without talking to A-Net first. But I do not need to be asked because my contribution has been released under GFDL anyways. That makes sense. The way I understand it, it doesn't mean that we can use non-released images with user mark up from GuildWiki. --Aspectacle 23:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

There's just a difference between copying over someone's images because they released them into GFDL - they can't release them into GFDL because they don't own the copyright. Plus images get moved and that's never kept in the history. I would suggest that the safest route is to only upload images you've taken yourself. But yes, you got it down pat in that second paragraph, apart from the last sentence. It's a murky issue that's for sure. - BeXoR 01:07, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(Reset indent)
I really can't see what all the fuss is about; the modified image can never be released into GFDL; the image remains under ANet's copyright; an Official Guild Wars Wiki editor may modify an ANet image for use solely here on the OffiWiki. The modification does not create a new image that becomes in any way that editor's legal intellectual property. The image should be tagged as not being GFDL, that it remains under the copyright of ANet. ANet in this instance have allowed the OffiWiki editor to modify the image solely for use and reproduction on this, their official wiki. It isn't that hard to grasp, when you think about it like this - ANet have said that we can use their copyrighted material here on their wiki as we see fit. The licensing strictly states that their copyright material remains their's and is not and cannot be GFDL. If we use a screenshot map and modify it, then we must tag it somehow to ensure that it is clearly understood to be ANet's and not GFDL or the property of the individual editor. Simplest solution = if it started life as a screenshot, it gets the ANet tag as proposed above Fox 05:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Slightly reworded version of the template here Fox 05:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Text

What about text derived from Arenanet sources websites and the like? It seems baed on the licensing policy we can use them, but IMO we need to (a) indicate they are from Arenanet sources...as they retain Arenanet copyright we need, just as for images, indicate that the text is not covered by GFDL so a third party cannot argue that they are covered by GFDL and use them. (b) We need to make sure that we can use them in terms of editing, where the derived article remains under Arenanet copyright... if we (as non-Arenanet editors) cannot make changes then any Arenanet articles need to be protected. Vladtheemailer 12:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I made a {{arenanet article}} that could be used if its ok. Vladtheemailer 13:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

That would end up on every article. :P - BeXoR 01:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

How about a section marker instead? Like {{in game text}} or similar? --Aspectacle 01:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I think text that has been quoted from an official source should be wrapped in a blockquote tag and given a particular class and cite. For example:

This is some text from Nightfall. Blah blah blah. Koss has big hair.

This separates it from the rest of the text, and we can use CSS to style the blockquote so that it is apparent to readers that it came from "Guild Wars Nightfall".

The argument that "normal users should not be able to edit articles that quote ArenaNet" is a ridiculous one. LordBiro 06:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My concern are articles that are heavily based on Anet copyrighted materials and have text copied verbatim from them such as Timeline. The majority of text here clearly comes from [[2]],[[3]], and [[4]]. There is no indication of that anywhere. The copyright for the Arenanet text doesn't merely go away because we have merged it together. That article is derivative of Anet copyrighted materials. Vladtheemailer 10:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Also my comment about making changes to Arenanet articles was a legal one. You can be granted the right to take text from copyrighted materials as long as the text is properly attributed to the source; however, that doesn't automatically grant you the right to edit the text. Vladtheemailer 10:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I would like to see something like the highlighting of text used in Abaddon. Perhaps using a span tag that gives the text a dashed border and maybe a background with a link at the end to the reference. - BeXoR 10:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The hightlighting in Abaddon is a good start but I feel there still should be a way of identifying it as having a different license. If, for example, a third party site takes either the Abaddon or Timeline and puts it on their site thinking its acceptable under GFDL then they are violating Arenanet's copyright. You could argue, well they need to do due diligence and check the Arenanet site/materials; which is rather impractical to say the least. Or may be they should avoid copying any of our text because some of it could be under Arenanet copyright, which is making us using GFDL kind of pointless. Vladtheemailer 10:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I have an idea but unfortunately I have to go out :P So I will mock it up when I get back. LordBiro 11:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Mwuhahaha! My diabolical scheme has come to fruition! Erm, I mean I've mocked up what I was thinking. It's at Template:Arenanet article2. No it isn't blank, there's an icon in the corner, which should probably link to an article that says something like "articles with this logo contain information that belongs to or is derived from work by ArenaNet and therefore not released under the GFDL". LordBiro 16:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd just noticed that as I was typing up User:Vladtheemailer/Copyright I think that would be better appended to something like the text in Abaddon, I'm not sure it'd be noticible with the text in Timeline Vladtheemailer 16:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I think on an article like timeline, where all of the work is derived from ArenaNet material, this icon would be best suited.

I think articles like Abaddon, where only certain sections are directly taken from ArenaNet, a styled blockquote would be best. The same icon could be used, although I don't know if it's necessary. LordBiro 16:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

In retrospect I think that would be fine shown at the top of the screen (for some reason I'd envisioned it at the end)... I do think it'd be safer to have in the Abaddon styled text too Vladtheemailer 16:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I added the template to timeline as an example. LordBiro 16:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, if you guys want people to notice that icon before copying any text, I'd say the icon needs to be more and in a more noticeable position. If I didn't go an click on edit for the template, I would've thought it was an empty template. Also, I think a section-based notice is a better idea. A page-wide notice won't help if the page is several pages long and the user has almost no way to figure out exactly which portion of the page the little notice applies to. -- ab.er.rant 19:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

More justification

This is a reply to the above but I felt it could do with a new section!

Aberrant said above that if we want people to read the notice then we should make it bigger than {{arenanet article2}}. He also said that a page-wide notice won't help if the notice only applies to a certain section. I will respond to his second statement first.

Currently {{arenanet article}} is only used on articles that are almost entirely copied form ArenaNet, and {{arenanet article2}} is intended to be used in the same way. A separate template would be needed for articles with copyrighted sections. I proposed above that any copyrighted material should be surrounded by blockquote tags and given a special class so that they stand out.

Regarding the first statement about making the template bigger, my thinking was this. There are two types of templates that are placed on articles:

1. Those for readers
2. Those for contributors and editors

Templates for readers say things like "this article is incomplete" or "this article is incorrect" or "more research needs to be done before this can be verified". These kind of things are important to our readers and therefore should be big and scary.

Templates for contributors or editors exist more for our benefit than for the readers benefit, and as such they don't need to be big and scary (see Chasing a Legend, The Protectors of Kryta (Part Two) or The North), instead they can be quite subtle. It is possible that my suggested template is too subtle. My thinking was that the arenanet article templates exist as a safety measure, so that if content is copied from the article we can say "hey, wait a second, you might not have noticed but this is copyright ArenaNet, not GFDL".

Most of our readers aren't going to want to copy the content, they're just going to want to read it, so that was why I thought the template should be small, much like the Protected2 template on Wikipedia. LordBiro 11:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

License choice

I originally brought up a request to change the site's edit form agreement text from "GFDL 1.2" to "GFDL 1.2 and all later versions" (but not on Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights). The issue was discussed on the admin mailing list and this was the result:

---

I asked our lawyers this question, and they are fine with either direction. ArenaNet-developed content is protected in either scenario because it's not covered by GFDL. As for community-developed content, the goal is to find a license that the community is comfortable releasing their content under, and yet still allows ArenaNet to integrate that content into the game. Our lawyers believe that both "GFDL 1.2" and "GFDL 1.2 and all later versions" provide sufficient rights to allow ArenaNet to integrate the content. Thus, either solution works for us, and we think it's appropriate to leave this decision to the community.

As a personal observation, I think that half the issue here is determining what level of control the community actually wants to retain over content it generates. Would the community have been just as happy if all its content were released into the public domain? Would the community have been just as happy if all copyrights were assigned to ArenaNet? By using GFDL instead of one of those two extremes, what worst-case scenarios does the community hope to avoid? These seem like fundamental questions we should try to answer before we can know whether future versions of GFDL are likely to be beneficial. After all, a future version of GFDL could effectively release content into the public domain, so before we sign up for all future versions, we should know whether we're comfortable with that.

In any case, this discussion takes on some additional urgency because we'd like to provide a Guild Wars 2 wiki site in the coming weeks. Hopefully the Guild Wars 2 site will be a natural extension of the Guild Wars site, with the same user database, administrators, policies, etc. But if we think that we made a mistake by choosing "GFDL 1.2 only" at the start of the Guild Wars wiki, now is the time to fix that mistake for Guild Wars 2.

---

Posted here for community discussion. --Rezyk 21:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the answer to the question of what level of control the community wants to have on its content is going to change from contributor to contributor, to be honest. I personally would be more than happy with everything being in Public Domain (and have in fact already released everything to PD), but I can see how someone like Biro or Smurf, who are producing something that requires ...talent... for lack of a better word, I can see how they could be less comfortable with that idea (maybe they aren't though, I don't want to put words in their mouth). On the other side of the spectrum, I'd simply never be part of the wiki if all content rights were given to ANet.

GFDL is probably the best licence for the entire wiki to use. It keeps everything mostly free to be used by other licence-compatible sites, allows ANet to use it for their own commercial purposes, and it also leaves the contributors with ownership of their works. Those of us that want to have our contributions also released under other terms can easily multi-licence them. Basically, GFDL keeps everyone happy, even if not necessarily ecstatic with joy. :)

And if we're using GFDL, having GFDL 1.2 and later as licensing terms is simply the most sensible thing to do, I'd say; not much point to get stuck with 1.2, chances of GFDL turning into PD are kinda slim to none. --Dirigible 22:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Edit conflict

I still object to this as it does not make sense on multiple levels.

First, 1.2 and later versions. What if 1.2 says X, Y, and Z are acceptable, but later down the line, 1.6 says X and Z are acceptable, but not Y. In this case the licensing is broken, as you cannot follow both 1.2 and 1.6 in all instances. If the wording was changed to "1.2 or the most recent version" then it would work. Edit - Struck out part that I didn't word correctly. What I intended to say was something to the effect of, "If the wording was changed to 'Content is licensed starting with the current version of the GFDL and automatically updated with each future revision of the GFDL that be licensed under that version.'" (I would still object, but logically it would work.)

Second, stick with the devil you know, not the devil you don't know. It is completely unknown and unknowable what future versions may incorporate into them, whereas the current version is known.

Third, it has been stated before that all content added prior to any change would need to be relicensed by its authors. How do we accomplish this? You (Rezyk) have stated that it is as easy as changing the edit agreement, but if that was the case, wouldn't the same have been possible on GuildWiki? Change the edit agreement to read "GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 (GFDL)" instead of "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" and then make an edit to each page, then copy it over here? No because licenses don't work that way. The original license still holds for the original content. --Rainith 23:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Updated my comments, see blue text above. --Rainith 00:55, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

1. The intention is to have contributions be licensed under 1.2 and licensed under each later version. Would this work better? "...you agree to license your contribution pursuant to the GFDL 1.2 and to all later versions, and..."
2. We can't end up being restricted more than 1.2, no matter what they stick in future versions. What's the worry? Is it apprehension over how people can reuse our work elsewhere?
3. I don't believe I ever stated that getting prior content relicensed is easy, and haven't pushed for that in over a month. Changing the edit agreement to 1.2+ is easy, and affects future contributions.

--Rezyk 03:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm a huge believer in the Free Software Foundation, and I put my faith in the FSF that GFDL 1.3 will be just as in line with my beliefs as 1.2, but I object to the change in the licensing text for practical reasons only.

I think having two license on a wiki is... painful. The truth is that we have enough freedoms at present, and I would rather stick with the license that we started with. I doubt there will be any repercussions if we were to implement this, but I'd rather avoid it because if there are repercussions then they will be very frustrating. LordBiro 07:38, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

How about using "1.2 and later" on the Guild Wars 2 wiki then? --Dirigible 09:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Would you say that you don't see any potential advantages? Or that there are potential advantages but they're outweighed by your worries of repercussions? --Rezyk 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The latter; I think that the risk of repercussions, and the effort that we will have to go to to find out which articles are licensed under 1.3, or 1.4 etc. and which are under 1.2 only, outweighs the benefits that we might receive from version 1.2+. LordBiro 19:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that GFDL 1.2+ is the right choice for the Guild Wars 2 wiki. It keeps us two-way compatible with most other GFDL works, while 1.2 only could eventually leave us isolated. It encourages contributions from users that want to make sure their work is reusable (which copyrighting to ArenaNet wouldn't) while also allowing us to draw from GFDL sources (which both public domain and copyrighting to ArenaNet wouldn't). It also leaves open the possibility of adopting a GNU license tailored for wikis (if that ever comes out). I favor 1.2+ for this site's edit agreement text because it could be useful if we ever want to switch the whole site for the same reasons (although it'd still be painstaking), but mostly because it could make it a lot easier to migrate some stuff to the Guild Wars 2 wiki (if that's 1.2+). --Rezyk 20:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you, Rezyk. As Biro stated above, I as well feel confident that the FSF won't derail from the very foundation upon which their organization is based upon, not simply because I "trust them" (which I do), but for the following reasons. I'll quote the last clause of the GFDL license here, for everyone's convenience.

10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions  of the GNU Free
Documentation License from time to time.  Such new  versions will be similar in
spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems
or concerns.  See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.
Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number.   If the 
Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this   License "or any
later version" applies to it, you have the option of   following the terms and
conditions either of that specified version or   of any later version that has
been published (not as a draft) by the   Free Software Foundation.  If the Document
does not specify a version   number of this License, you may choose any version
ever published (not   as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.

The first paragraph in other words pledges that the license will always remain true to the same ideals, i.e. copyleft and free software. If they fail that to honour that, the license can be challenged in court as not being a true successor to GFDL 1.2, and thus invalid. That's reason one.

Reason two: What that "1.2 and later versions" licensing term does is that it effectively multi-licenses the content (as the second paragraph above describes). Version 1.2 itself will always apply to the content. These materials we produce will always be as free as they are under this current version. By having the material licensed as "1.2 and later", there's only the risk of it becoming more free, and I personally can most certainly live with that (in fact, I'd be glad if that happened :P ); if version 1.5 of the GFDL for example applies some crazy limitation on how the licensed content can be used, the 1.2 is always available as a softer fallback, (which is the same reason that Wikimedia recommends its users to multi-license their pictures with a Creative Commons license, since for that particular purpose it's more appropriate than the GFDL in some ways; it doesn't require a complete version of the source to be made available, etc). We would never need to figure out whether a particular contribution was v1.2, 1.3 or 1.4, Biro, since each and every single one of them is multi-licensed with all those licenses. We can just go ahead and use them.

The risk of getting locked in with this license version is also a very serious one. Just look at the sticky mess that happened with so many people licensing their software (the Linux kernel being one of them) as GPLv2 ONLY, and now that GPLv3 is partially incompatible with GPLv2 the whole thing got messy. If, 5 years in the future, ANet starts a new wiki for GuildWars3 using GFDL 1.5 which just happens to be incompatible with 1.2, we wouldn't be able to use any of the "GFDL 1.2 ONLY" content from this site, nor would any other sites using that more updated version of the GFDL. Getting locked in by our own volition is simply a Bad Idea. --Dirigible 22:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Dirigible and Rezyk, I am aware of the benefits of licensing under future versions, and I'm aware of the disadvantages we may' face if we do not license under future versions, but I am still not persuaded. I don't think the advantages outweigh the effort.

I of course encourage using GFDL 1.2+ for the Guild Wars 2 wiki. LordBiro 05:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, there I wasn't trying to convince you in particular; just getting my general opinion on the record. I'd love to try and lessen your worries about repercussions (or have you increase mine), but I don't see how to without more concrete worries to work with. For worrying in general (like that we may have overlooked something), I doubt I could do any better than ArenaNet lawyers giving their okay. I'm by no means saying it's wrong for you to feel how you do, just admitting that I can't see any good way to really discuss your concerns further. --Rezyk 13:17, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I too wish that I had more concrete examples on which to base my concerns. All I can say is that, since I don't, I have no reason to oppose the change in license. :) LordBiro 07:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I favor going to 1.2+ Banaticus 03:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

It sounds like there's a consensus that we should use 1.2+ for the upcoming Guild Wars 2 wiki. In that case, I think we should change the contribution page on this wiki so that users here agree to provide content under 1.2+ too. That way, in the future when users post information on one wiki which is applicable to the other, we'll be able to move it or mirror it. We don't have to change the licensing page on this wiki to reflect the 1.2+ availability of some content. --Mike O'Brien 14:43, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Does anyone agree or disagree with adding 1.2+ to the disclaimer on the submission page (only) so that content that is submitted from now on can be more easily migrated to the Guild Wars 2 wiki once we set one up? -- Mike O'Brien 15:52, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I have no opposition to changing the disclaimer so that all future edits are released under 1.2+. LordBiro 16:39, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Still support from me. --Dirigible 18:33, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with it, and suggest the phrasing "...pursuant to the GNU Free Documentation License (1.2 or any later version)...". This is to lessen ambiguity (of the kind brought up in the discussion above) and to better fit the wording of section 10 of the GFDL. --Rezyk 18:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

It looks like no one opposes, so I'll go ahead and make the change. -- Mike O'Brien 22:41, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

ArenaNet Content Category (and related templates)

This pertains to the following category and templates:

• Category:ArenaNet content
• Template:Arenanet article2
• Template:Arenanet article

All images, NPC speech, pretty much everything in the Wiki except for things like the walkthroughs that we wrote, is not GDFL, it's copyright ArenaNet. Unless we want to go through and apply those types of templates and categories like that to every image and every page that contains NPC speech, etc., in this wiki (which just seems to be a ludicrous idea), I feel that those types of categories/templates should be deleted. Banaticus 03:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

For anyone who may just be tuning in, the discussion on those templates has taken place before at talk:Copyrights#Text and Category talk:ArenaNet content.

As I've said before, I think the template is fine, as it's not replacing GWW Copyrights. It's simply informing anyone who might be interested in using that information know that the entire page is not GFDL. That makes those pages different from all others on the wiki, where ANet text is mixed with GFDL text. I just pruned Category:ArenaNet content a few hours ago, so right now it has mostly pages that should belong there, and in its current state it seems worthwhile to have to me.

As for NPC speech, species descriptions (such as at Harpy) and other similar prose, it's been discussed before about how to differentiate it from regular text, I don't think that discussion went anywhere, though. Maybe worth revisiting? --Dirigible 03:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Pretty much every NPC in the game says something and everything in the game (NPC/location/item) has an image associated with it. If we mark out things like NPC speech and images from the game, we'd have to apply a template or category like those to virtually every page on this wiki. Probably not the recent Stub page that I created, but for the most part we'd have to apply something like that to virtually every page on this wiki. Some sort of copyright template/category like those which really would need to be applied to every page probably would be better off being placed in something like Guild Wars Wiki:General disclaimer which is already linked to from the bottom of every page on this wiki. Banaticus 04:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Personally I favor going with something like this to differentiate in game text:

"You are the Chosen I have been waiting for. Long have I looked forward to this moment. What is it you seek?" All text is copyright 2007 by Arenanet and/or NC soft and is used with their permission.

A template could be used so that the formatting and copyright message (which could probably be improved upon) wouldn't need to be entered each time. Note, I just dropped this in here quick, I'm not saying that is the color we should go for, or anything. I just think that would be a better way to differentiate the text. --Rainith 12:10, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

EDIT- I forgot to mention, I fixed the category link you had up the Banaticus, I hope you don't mind.  :) --Rainith 12:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Appearance-wise, yup, that's about it. I'd disagree with having the copyright line there though, because as I said above these templates shouldn't be replacing GWW Copyrights. They're simply supposed to be visual cues that this text has been taken verbatim from a non-free source. The gray background + italics get that message across quite well without needing the copyright notice, which happens to be quite harsh to the eyes (at least to me). --Dirigible 12:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

PLEASE use a blockquote tag, that's what it was designed for. I.e.

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

It might make sense to use a class and put the necessary style info in common.css, in case we want to update the appearance of blockquotes in the future. LordBiro 12:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

"All text is copyright 2007 by Arenanet and/or NC soft and is used with their permission." <-- We would seriously have to add that to every NPC page, because every NPC says something. We would have to add it to every skill page because of the skill description. There is no need for these types of templates/categories/classes because such things which would need to go on virtually every page, again, are better served by being put in Guild Wars Wiki:General disclaimer which is already linked to from the bottom of every page on this wiki. As for the template that says, "This entire page is non-GDFL", that may be true right now. But what about if a player finds an NPC or an in game item which says something about a given bit of lore or a non exclusive magazine article says something more about that bit of lore? The template would seem, to me, to discourage further edits by players to add that new information. Furthermore, what about skill stubs? Pages that only have the skill image, the skill description and the effect with no commentary? Aren't they also entirely non-GDFL as ArenaNet still holds the copyright to all things on that page? These types of templates/categories (which would seem helpful only to someone wanting to make a copy of the wiki for their own website) are redundant, couldn't possibly be comprehensive enough and seem to discourage editing the articles to provide additional information (which would seem to be against the spirit of this wiki). As such, I don't see any need for them and would prefer to tag them for deletion. Banaticus 15:10, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to support Banaticus here. Why are you wanting to differenciate? I haven't seen any reasons stated here. It isn't legally required because the site license covers everything necessary and is on every single page. I can understand if it labels a page which is entirely ArenaNet content, but as a Guild Wars wiki you should know that on virtually every page there is something which ArenaNet still owns the copyright on, and for most cases you don't need to be told which, because it is really obvious. If you want to format dialogue with pretty block quotes and stick a simple box around the skill description, you should do that but do it because it looks good not because you think you have to - because frankly you don't. Leave the legal stuff to the lawyers, there are too many grey areas for a labelling system to be enforced consistently and well across the wiki. If someone copies the site, don't give them a loophole of "It wasn't labelled I thought I could use it." --Aspectacle 17:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the blockquote (but not necessarily the legal text) is generally good as a convenience to both users and editors. I think we should even go further and try to label things with their source (also for convenience). Example: The Rift (story) jumps into story-telling mode without giving the reader any context. I'd like to see it blockquoted and given some header like "In-game story" or "Story from manual" so I don't have to guess at where it's from. (And then it should be moved into a section in the appropriate topic article, The Rift...) A clear header like that should be more than enough for GFDL labeling concerns, while being more informative. I tend to dislike the "entire page is non-GFDL" template for the same reasons Banaticus gives (discouraging editing). --Rezyk 18:25, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In principle I agree, but are you suggesting that all of The Rift (story) be surrounded by blockquotes? I can understand blockquoting sections of text in other articles, and highly recommend we do this instead of use a template, but when an entire article is ripped from an official source... should we still blockquote it? LordBiro 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

EDIT confilct - The problem that I see, is that unless we denote what text is copyrighted and what text isn't we are creating those gray areas that you speak of Aspectacle. It the text is denoted specifically as being under ANet's copyright, then JoeNewGuy should have no doubt that it is not under GFDL. The same thing for why I put the little copyright note there, if it isn't denoted as such, how are people supposed to know? As for Biro's complaint about not using blockquote, my apologies, I simply copied the coding in my example from the page linking to it in the earlier discussion about this further up this page. :P (If ANet had simply stated that all content except for templates and non-ANet images were to be considered ANet's copyright it would have been much simpler.) --Rainith 18:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess it depends on how aesthetically pleasing you can make it.. =) What about using something like a border outline for large texts? --Rezyk 18:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The license description for this site is all that is required and any grey areas using that statement can be sorted out by lawyers if they need to take up copyright violation action against someone. By adding something to the scheme we can only add to the complexity therefore increasing any grey areas and introduce loopholes.
Most people, particularly editors, don't need to be told that dialogue isn't made up but is from the game. Likewise skill descriptions, mission and quest objectives and likely other stuff I can't think of right now. Basic users aren't going to investigate the meaning of an outline box before they copy the text, and other wiki already have much of this information without any of this "it's copyright to ArenaNet" mumbo jumbo. If anything it should be those wikis going to this effort because we actually have permission and the license which allows it. I think you guys just like to make work! ;) --Aspectacle 19:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

On that note, I'm going to list that category and those templates for deletion, as I believe a simple majority favors not using them and using them would essentially require revamping every page in the wiki. Banaticus 19:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't entirely agree, still, and I don't believe consensus has been reached by any means.

There is some content that is taken ad verbatim from the Guild Wars website, transcribed from the game, or quoted from the manual. Sometimes this takes up a full article. Do we have any right to edit it? This is a story written by ArenaNet and, while we can use it, it doesn't necessarily mean we can rewrite it.

"You may also post content obtained from Guild Wars, its web sites, manuals and guides, concept art and renderings, press and fansite kits, and other such copyrighted material that ArenaNet has made available to the general public, to the site. All rights, title and interest in and to such content shall remain with ArenaNet or NCsoft, as applicable, and such content is not licensed pursuant to the GFDL." Nothing is said here that confirms that it is ok to rewrite such content, unlike the GFDL which makes this clear. LordBiro 04:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say that this statement: "I believe a simple majority favors not using them" is very unfounded. A more accurate statement would be that the majority of people dont even know about this issue, and those that do havent reached any consensus yet. - BeXoR 05:07, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

All the text on the articles labeled with those templates is not free (free as in speech, not beer). We have been given permission to use it, but only us. Lets even assume for argument's sake that we've even been given the right to modify it (we probably do really have that right); the end derivative result is still not GFDL or free content, other sites still cannot use that material, because the ANet material is still an integral part of it. This is different from all other materials on this wiki like walkthroughs, notes, descriptions, templates, infoboxes etc, which are GFDL and can be used by other compatible sites freely. It's a pretty huge difference that deserves to be differentiated. And once again, the template/category does not claim that the copyright belongs to ANet (GWW Copyrights does that), but it simply makes users aware that the entire page is out of bounds as far as using it elsewhere goes. --Dirigible 05:17, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't disagree with the page wide template. The examples which were pointed out to me elsewhere definitely needed some indication that they were stories from lore, and not just stuff someone had written and submitted. You'll get no argument from me about that template. My argument is with the imbedded content which is obviously from in game - skill descriptions and the like - where I still firmly believe a labelling scheme is completely unnecessary. --Aspectacle 05:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I would see that sort of template being used more for dialogue or quest logs. - BeXoR 14:56, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, we should have a consistent labelling scheme that covers all the non-obvious stuff. Maybe we can come up with one that doesn't cover the obvious stuff? --Rezyk 22:31, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Can we upload images with our own choice of copyright?

User page images/sig images that are the users own work - how do we mark these if we don't want them to be GFDL? Is there an alternative template we can use? Can a section be added about exceptions like these? - BeX 06:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that text contributions aren't too problematic to be released under GFDL, but for those people who want to add pictures to their user page or sig, that they or other artists have created for them, but do not want to release under GFDL, it would be nice to have an option to be able specify the licensing terms. Currently anything uploaded is GFDL only, unless owned by Anet. - BeX 09:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A week of waiting, RFC and still nothing! I know people commission artists and put the art on their user pages and the author is either forced to release it or a modified version under GFDL or refuse permission for it to be uploaded. I also questions about fan art inspired by the game (how can these be licensed and how much claim does the author have on the work) and other work that completely original. I would just slap a creative commons license image on, but I think this article pretty much negates everything because it doesn't allow for exceptions. If anyone has insight or answers it would be much appreciated. - BeX 17:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bexface! At present I don't know of any alternative template. I think this is a difficult issue, and I suspect this is why many people are not getting involved. I don't really have any definite answers, but I do support allowing people to upload images under various licenses other than GFDL. LordBiro 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I have absolutely no artistic talent, I don't have much opinion on this issue. But some artist would like a different license, I'll say, why not? Wouldn't input from Gaile or Mike be necessary for this? We need to see Anet's stand on non-GFDL that's also non-ArenaNet. -- ab.er.rant 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While I am not exactly sure how the GFDL affects images (are they documents?), I brought this up with my image conspirator collaborator a while back, and we decided that we would have to be okay with it. Do we? I'm also not entirely sure how submissions should proceed when two people have made an inseparable (joint) contribution. -- Dashface 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you for the replies! I'll give you a couple of situations I know of where the "all original contributions fall under GFDL" have affected whether the work has been uploaded or not. I know Scourge had art commissioned of one of his characters, and the artist wasn't okay with the full version being uploaded under GFDL and he had to have a small edited version instead. And lastly, I personally have 2 things I would like to upload for my userpage, both being completely original work (one being combined with a screenshot). Because of that first line in this policy I've been holding off on it.

I think the first paragraph needs to be amended to specify a difference between images and text, and between Guild Wars related things and other things that supplement the wiki. For example icons that aren't influenced by GW and are wholly original - most of the time the user is okay with GFDL, but if they aren't we don't have a choice in the matter. - BeX 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think this is an issue for which the final say will be up to ANet's lawyers, and not us. Going on, the GFDL was chosen for several reasons which shouldn't be dismissed while discussing the possibility of allowing users to specify their own licensing terms for content uploaded to the wiki. Considerations to keep in mind :

• Would allowing users to set their own copyright license and/or merely give the GWW permission to use their images mess with possible future forks of the wiki? Thought experiment: ArenaNet gets a bit heavy-handed and we decide to grab our stuff and start another wiki. We wouldn't be able to do so easily unless the license used for contributions here is sufficiently free to allow that.
• Similarly, would this interfere with someone's right to copy content from this wiki to their site elsewhere? Right now this wiki is as free as it gets as far as a GuildWars fansite is concerned; all FDL content can be used with no issue if they're using the same license, and all ANet content can probably be covered by a fair use defense. Would introducing other licenses to the mix complicate this?
• Then there's always the fact that there was a reason why ArenaNet didn't just set this wiki to CC by-nc-sa and clone the GuildWiki content; it simply wouldn't be compatible with their commercial-nature goals for the wiki, such as the in-game integration effort (other future possibilities should also be kept in mind, "GWW: DVD Edition", anyone?). Allowing editors to release their contributions under a license that conflicts with those goals would be inappropriate, I think.
• Somehow the idea of having a mishmash of contributions using various licenses lurking around the wiki seems messy to me. I'm not even sure if we can legally combine contributions using different licenses together, to be honest. Not only isn't the FDL compatible with the different CC licenses, but they aren't even all compatible with each other either. Wouldn't that be a problem?

Are these concerns valid, or am I just spewing FUD here?

The only wiki I know that doesn't require posted content to be released under a particular license is MeatballWiki, but they are certainly an exception, and not the norm (their goals and purpose are extremely different from ours).

Is there any particular reason why you don't want to have those images released under the FDL, Bexor? Yeah, it's a pretty clumsy license to use for images, but you can always just dual-license them with a CreativeCommons license if you wish to do so, and no one can say anything about it. --Dirigible 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First, let's get this out of the way: right now, you cannot upload any data (image, text, or otherwise) that you cannot legally license under the GFDL. The reason for this is simple -- it's the agreement you make whenever you click the Save page button, in that block of text right above it. It's also in Project:Copyrights, and I've just added it to the image upload page to make it clear.

As for whether or not we should allow multiple licenses, I agree with Dirigible wholeheartedly, and feel no need to further comment.

—Tanaric 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dirigible and Tanaric, but I think this whole question got started from Wikipedia itself. See the Image copyrights section for information. I fully support leaving everything as GFDL, though. MisterPepe talk 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, as their copyright text specifically states that only text is necessarily available under the GFDL. Ours has no such disclaimer at this point, though we can always loosen it later if we need to. —Tanaric 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern in this was content uploaded for userpages or signatures. And, yes, when I was asking this question I was thinking specifically of the wikipedia image licenses. The reason FDL doesn't work for me is that you don't have to attribute the author when reproducing it (if I read the license correctly). Plus the whole freedom to use it for commercial purposes as well. - BeX 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

... Did you read that link on Wikipedia? GFDL image licensing requires attribution and similar licensing distribution. MisterPepe talk 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It only says in the actual license that you have to reproduce the license, copyright notes and the license notice are on all copies. Our GFDL template has nothing about attribution. I would much prefer a creative commons license. And besides, GFDL is really not designed for images, which is lame. - BeX 06:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement."

"You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License."

While not designed for image, it seems pretty clear to me that it requires attribution. That's taken directly from our version of the license. MisterPepe talk 06:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's for distribution of modified copies though. - BeX 07:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not the second quote right there. The copyright notices include document author, and that portion is referring to unedited work. The copyright notices are specifically the attribution that you're looking for - if you look in section D and E of the modified section, you'll see proof of that. Any copying or modification whatsoever requires leaving the original copyright notice intact, which necessitates attribution. MisterPepe talk 07:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is all getting sidetracked, because even if that is the case, we still have no choice if we don't want the work modified or used commercially. :P - BeX 07:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Since our current userspace policy is draconian, having a draconian image policy seems fitting. —Tanaric 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. To be fair, we are looking at relaxing some of those limits... MisterPepe talk 07:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little harsh. In any case, I think handling general userspace issues is more important than dealing with multilicensing (not to detract from the initial discussion). Ee really can't change this without ArenaNet support, and as it is, since our userspace philosophy right now is "simple and about Guild Wars" I don't see the point in expanding one policy against that philosophy whilst the overarching policy still supports it. —Tanaric 07:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The userspace policy doesn't say that at all. - BeX 08:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"You are encouraged to present brief personal information and content related to the Guild Wars Wiki on your user page. ...you should avoid content that is not relevant to Guild Wars or the Guild Wars Wiki. ... content that does not relate to Guild Wars or the Guild Wars Wiki should not be the main contribution of a user and should receive minimal time and dedication."

—Tanaric 10:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Avoided, not disallowed. It feels like you are trying to steer away from this discussion altogether. - BeX 13:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to divert the discussion so off track. To be concise, I personally don't see much value in allowing multiple licensing for images. The current user page policy leads me to believe that people here, in general, aren't looking to expand creative expression in userspace, and so expanding our image licensing guidelines seems out of place. Further, it's not really our decision anyway -- such a change would need to go through ArenaNet.

I'm certainly not trying to quell discussion, and I apologize if it seemed like I was doing so. :)

—Tanaric 13:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The userspace policy certainly doesn't disallow a picture of non-related content (for instance a photograph!) and there are also sig images to consider. The userspace policy talk page has repeated all over the place that you are allowed to be creative, especially on your subpages, but that your content should be wiki/gw related, though not exclusively. Perhaps the reason people aren't looking to expand their creativity more is because with the current licensing things are so limited! I know I have certain images I would like to use on my userpage that are original work, but will be used for wiki/gw related data presentation, but I don't want them licensed under FDL.

I left a message on Gaile's talk page, so maybe we will hear from Anet about this soon. I hope! - BeX 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I can respect that opinion, even though I disagree with you. I'm interested to know if multiple licensing will be considered by ArenaNet too. Once we find out what's possible, we can discuss whether we as a community want to expand our userspace licensing policy. —Tanaric 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset indentation) If you recall the reason that the GWW got started, you'll note that licensing issues were at the very core of the official wiki's conception. [[5]]. It seems to me that allowing contributors to select different license terms on the GWW could very well put the entire project at risk. For they potentially could elect to license under the CC by-nc-sa rules that were the most prevalent concern at the start, and were they to do so, it would create genuine problems. So it is my opinion--and certainly we can get legal counsel to weigh in, if necessary--that we should require all content on the Guild Wars Wiki to be released under GFDL. I'm interested in what others have to say, of course. However, at this point I don't see any way to invoke a variety of licenses and still maintain the clearcut permissions we currently have in place concerning in-game integration, contributions, and so forth. --Gaile 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the subject of text and on ArenaNet images. There also exists some content, such as fan art or the like, which would not be uploaded to the wiki if there was no room for alternative licenses. Would it not be possible to require all text and all screenshots and ArenaNet content to be released under the GFDL and a restrictive license respectively and allow images that do not contribute to the project in general to be uploaded under an alternate license? LordBiro 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Although it would be nice to be able to upload images for personal user page use with a more restricting license, I don't think that is something that we should allow; Atleast not without thinking about it carefully, listing all possible problems, etc. If this would ever become a possibility, using those images should be restricted to user nme space only. However, that forces us to use more time to prevent policy violations for basically no gain for the wiki task of documenting the game. -- (gem / talk) 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gem. I'll put it directly: Why muddy the waters with variant and possibly conflicting licenses? One reason might be to allow fan art on the wiki, but let me address that: Fan art is great, and it's one of my favourite things within the community, but (1) there are other places that server very well to host fan art, (2) pointing people in the direction of those places, such as fan- and guild sites that feature fan art is a community-building effort, and (3) few members of the community, in my experience, are inclined to worry about copyrighting images that they create based on Guild Wars--and in fact they may not be able to do so since they are based on a copyrighted property--and it goes without saying those things not related to Guild Wars aren't really essential elements on the wiki.

In the end, in my opinion, the value to the GWW of images that users create and wish to protect via license or copyright is not worth the risk or the confusion--or even possible negative reverberations--that could arise from any sort of "multi-licensed" wiki hierarchy. I would, with regret, forego the inclusion of art that fans feel they need to protect by their own copyrights in order to keep our license uncomplicated and readily understood, our usages appropriate, and the service that the GWW offers our community as clear and open as possible. --Gaile 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that sucks! I guess no sig image or border art for me then. - BeX 03:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Do you really need a different license? Unless making sig images and border art is one's source of income, I don't really understand why anyone would require a different type of license. Perhaps I do not understand this fully, but can't GWW contributors simply use the GFDL? --Gaile 03:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think contributors are somewhat interested in releasing content under a Creative Commons license with the 'non-commericial' attribute, to prevent people from making money off their art. Unfortunately, even if multiple licenses were allowed in userspace, a non-commercial license never could be. —Tanaric 04:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Images revisited

We have {{arenanet image}} which categorizes into Category:ArenaNet images. {{screenshot}} categorizes into Category:Screenshots which is a subcategory of ArenaNet images. Fansite kit images are in Category:Fansite kit images, another subcat of ArenaNet images, but I don't think they have a template.

Some people were unhappy with the arenanet image template being whacked on every image, even though whatever the image type the licensing rights are the same. I suppose that was why the screenshot tag was created though.

Barek and I briefly discussed the organization of the categories. He believes that there shouldn't be images in the arenanet image category, but rather in subcategories, such as "ArenaNet render", "ArenaNet icon", "ArenaNet screenshot", "ArenaNet concept art" and so on.

I think we should look into this, and perhaps changing the way the templates work (i.e. arenanet image instead gets parameters which signify what kind of image they are to decide what category they should be in). I think there are benefits from splitting the image types, although I don't know if different templates are warrented if we could combine them instead. Any comments? - BeX 11:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea splitting the files to multiple sub-categories. A parameter in {{arenanet image}} would be a good idea, as anything without a parameter could be put in Category:ArenaNet images so that anyone can then fix the tag easily. -- (gem / talk) 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As Bexor mentioned, she and I had originally discussed this some over at Category talk:ArenaNet images. I hadn't realised that she had started a follow-up on it here, so I also inserted the idea on a thread at Template_talk:Arenanet_image#Modify_template?. I'll redirect people from that thread over to here so it can all be in one conversation rather than spread out in multiple places. For simplicity, here's a repost of my comments on that thread: " I think it would be simpler to just use this single template; but to add a variable to it. That way {{Arenanet image|screenshot}} could appear slightly different, and group to its own subcategory. Likewise, similar switches could be added for {{Arenanet image|render}}, {{Arenanet image|icon}}, {{Arenanet image|concept art}} etc. This way only one template is actually needed - and the images can be organized better into sub-categories instead of all lumped together into Category:ArenaNet images." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to revive this topic again as I think it is a good idea. I would split the ArenaNet images into the following categories:

• ArenaNet images
  • ArenaNet renders
    • Arenanet armor renders
    • ArenaNet npc renders
    • ArenaNet item renders
  • ArenaNet icons
    • ArenaNet skill icons
  • ArenaNet concept art
  • ArenaNet Fansite Kit images
  • Screenshots

What do you think? poke | talk 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. — ク Eloc 貢 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as you implement them on GWWT, this makes sense. :) -- Brains12 • Talk • 22:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, and I think Bareks solution with parameters instead of masses of different templates would be the best way. - anja 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problems here, although I would think it might as well be "ArenaNet screenshots", for consistency, and perhaps in case we ever need "Screenshots" for something else, like Windows screenshots or something. -- ab.er.rant 01:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

k ;) And of course will GWWT support that then :P The only question I have now: Keep the screenshot & fansite kit image template separated or merge into the arenanet image template? poke | talk 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seperate. — ク Eloc 貢 01:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say separate too, but I'm not sure I get what you mean. Are you saying the fansite kit images and the screenshots should be merged into the parent category? And one more nitpicky thing.... do we really need to retain the capital F and capital K? :P -- ab.er.rant 13:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Two notes I'd suggest: First, I think it's preferable to keep {{screenshot}} rather than replace it with {{Arenanet image|screenshot}}. Screenshots are the images that are going to be most often uploaded, and {{screenshot}} is a lot easier to remember and for regular users to understand. The other thing is, rather than having Fansite Kit as a separate type of Arenanet image, I think it'd be more useful to have it as an extra classification. So, rather than {{Arenanet image|fansite kit}} we'd have, for example {{Arenanet image|concept art|fsk}} that would put it in both the concept art and the fansite kit categories, and similarly {{screenshot|fsk}} that would put it in both screenshots and fansite kit. - Tanetris 16:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get the upload file thing set up like Wikipedia where it asks what type of image it is before you upload it? That way, say, someone wanted to upload a user image it would already kind of default the naming scheme to it and have {{user image}} already pre on the user image ahead of time? — ク Eloc 貢 01:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

After some time, I finally did that change. You can find the new template here: {{ArenaNet image}}. I will set up a bot in the next days so the images will be categorized correctly. But I will not recategorize all of them at once ;) poke | talk 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Windows Screenshots

Ok I thought I would bring this up here, these Image:Update game lnk2.jpg Image:Update game lnk.jpg two images have recently correctly been pointed out that they are not GDFL and should therefore be deleted. Is there anyway around this considering it is a sort of unique circumstance in that the screenshots are demonstrating the use of A-nets software. --Lemming64 13:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is one idea - see Image talk:Update game lnk.jpg for the discussuion-- Indochine talk 13:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See this link for moved discussion. - BeX 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)