User talk:Great Darkwolf/copyrightvios

Trouble? Copyright vios? Maybe

→ moved from User talk:Regina Buenaobra

Regina, I just got busted on it a little bit ago (didn't know some of the rules around here >.<) but I think your Metroid pic could very well be a copy-right vio. I'm not official in anyway way, so it's not like I can do anything or will, but I just thought I would yet ya know. If you think action needs to be taken, then I'll leave it to you. --Wolf 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This was brought up before, but from what I understood, fan-created art was okay (it was created for me by a wiki user). I looked through the image guidelines and I couldn't find anything specifically relating to this. Wiki veterans: if this is against the rules, let me know, and I'll find another sig image to use. =) --Regina Buenaobra 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I'm gathering, even being fan made, if it contains copy-writen material, it cannont be posted. I had a funny pic on my user page that a friend of mine had made for me a while ago, but it contains a pic from Pirates of the Carribian, and was considered to be a against policy here on the wiki, so I had to take it down >.< --Wolf 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because the pic was actually taken directly from the movie and then other things added to it, unlike Regina's sig icon which is entirely handmade. If your friend had made a sketch of Jack Sparrow running away from other sketched figures, that would be perfectly acceptable, but he didn't. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem comes when they are made out from original copyrighted material, so if the Metroid cell was made from a copyrighted original picture of a Matroid cell there would be trouble, but if it was a fan-made draw made to look like like a Metroid cell it won't be so much of a trouble. For a Pirates of the Caribbean picture, it would be 'legal' if it were your friend disguised as a pirate. MithTalk 18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The other two hand-drawn cases I remember are that Piplup and Super Igor's last sig icon. Nobody likes troll pictures, of course, especially ones that are just handmade to avoid GWW:COPY. Igor's was the Superman icon. Not sure how I can make this relevant, just thought I'd bring up recent specific cases. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of those were essentially carbon-copies, to the point where they couldn't really be considered original artwork. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So, If I hand-drew an outline of the batman symbol, scanned it, and photo shopped it so the outline was solid black instead of pencil color, and the used it on the wiki woudl that be a copy-right violation? --Wolf 18:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because that's still essentially a carbon-copy of a well-known and well-defined symbol owned by a particular franchise's IP. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It must have the very same vector and be used in a contet that makes sure it's a Batman logo. Just a bat won't do. MithTalk 18:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole goal of the pirates picture was not for it to be pirates and jack sparrow, it was supposed to just be a person running from a lot of enemies. Also Aiiane, by that same reasoning, that would make Regina's metroid a violation. There is no decernable difference between it and one from the game. --Wolf 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. *puts Metroid nerd hat on* Metroids in the games generally have green goo surrounding the central nuclei, unless they're angry -- then they're red. The clearest shot of a metroid with blue goo surrounding the nuclei is in a picture of concept art from Super Metroid (1994). But it's still not exactly the same, because it's mostly clear with a blue outline. Unlike the sig image, which is filled-in blue. --Regina Buenaobra 19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

BAH! Copy-right laws, second in complicity complexity only to Quantum Physics. --Wolf 19:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Question; Is this about copyright laws or the wiki's copyright policy?--Dunyas 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure both. --Wolf 19:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because it sounds to me like your image was fine, at least under U.S. copyright law. It would have fallen under fair use, being a parody and only a frame or two from a movie. But if the wiki policy says thats not okay, then it would have had to go. I was just wondering if the wiki has a page on the policy so I can take a look at it so I can avoid a violation.--Dunyas 19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrighted content and Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights. If I recall correctly, it's because our license doesn't work with Fair use. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Complexity. :awesome: Complicity is "the state of being an accomplice; partnership or involvement in wrongdoing: complicity in a crime." Dictionary.com is my best friend. Besides, you know, humans. And Guild Wars. And GWW. The policy is there to avoid law problems, so the latter facilitates the former. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 19:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, when you have a rather large vocabulary, words tend to mix around inside your head and make you think of the wrong one >.< --Wolf 19:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

copyright laws suck D: --AnorithTalk 19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just going to hit this on a case-by-case basis. Is there anything wrong with this?

File:User Great Darkwolf Demon Hunter Symbol.jpg

This user listens to and is an avid fan of Demon Hunter

Note: I made the image myself and spent a fair amount of time in paint to do so. --Wolf 19:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it's an exact tracing of the design here? (Or posted on-wiki and CfD at Image:Demon_Hunter.jpg?) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the goal IS for it too look like the actual symbol, or there is no point in having it. It's the main Identifier for the band. If it looked different enough it would no-longer retain it's meaning. It would be like making the superman S in a square. And it's not an exact trace, It's mostly hand done. I couldn;t get the shape and possitioning of the eyes right tho. Also, you have no idea how much I have drawn that by hand. I can get it almost exact (except for the eyes) pretty much every time. --Wolf 19:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that you did that mostly by hand. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Drawn it easily over 10,000 times. It's not that hard when your looking at it and it's been laser etched in the back of your brain for around 6 years. --Wolf 20:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When the sizes match to the pixel level? I didn't scale your image at all when overlaying it there, and yet everything is exactly the same size. Even the best of artists can't get that exact a copy without tracing - they can get the ratios, the angles, the flow, but without copying you're going to get some at least minor variations. Even the flaws match on edges. Sorry, but that's just pure BS. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When your working in paint.net it's very easy. I skteched out as detailed an outline as I can by hand, and sat there and took the pencil and pixel by pixel worked it as close as I could tell to the original,and smoothed out the edges along the way, measure out some dimensions on the pixel level, draw a bunch of marking lines, ect. when your zoomed in to about 100x100 pixel rez filling a 1440x900 screen, its easy to get down and dirty with the details. --Wolf 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps knowing my motive behind this would help. I was going to later on do a different image and work in something more artistic than a basic outline on black and white, but what would be the point if I'm not going to be able to use it? It's not that I want to use a specific image, it's that I want an image with that specific symbol in it --Wolf 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"and pixel by pixel worked it as close as I could tell to the original", "measure out some dimensions on the pixel level" You're essentially describing the process of making a tracing of an image. Whether or not you actually had the image underneath the one you were creating isn't the question, it's whether you're trying to imitate the actual image, or the thing the image depicts. In this case, you're trying to imitate the actual image, hence, it's a tracing. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it wasn't atleast an imitation of the original, it would retain the meaning behind it, and would thus be worthless for the purpse I have instore for it. --Wolf 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me stamp out a big misconception here. Drawn by hand does not make things any different. It can still be a copyright violation. The thing is that lots of sig images here (even if it is taking the same picture and resizing it) are derivative works of a copyrighted work. However, fair use for a forum-like image is pretty well in effect. IOW, you are wasting your time squabbling about copyright violations for couple-pixel images. The only problem I would have with Regina's sig, and this is more of an ANet decision than this wiki's, is that she is here in her official capacity working as an employee of ANet using a Nintendo trademark. But, let's not clog up Regina's page with that discussion, she can talk to company lawyers about that if she wants. --Ravious 20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess someone decided we would do this on my talk page now. Thats cool. I probably should have brought it here a while ago >.< --Wolf 20:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) May want to note, in any case, that the wiki doesn't allow content under the Fair Use act, only content released under the GFDL or a compatible license. As such, derivated work based on something whose character design is protected would still be in breach (ie. "carbon copies").--Fighterdoken 20:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you better go in a witch-hunt then if Fair Use derivative works cannot be used for signatures. --Ravious 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Along the lines of what Ravious is saying, Nintendo could sue Anet for Regina using a Metroid. Heck, if I wanted to use the Demon Hunter symbol 100% legit here, I would have to make something pretty different, but it would still look enough like a Demon Hunter trademark for them to sue. Deriving something of a trademark does not clear it of being a trade mark. But would Nintendo or Demon Hunter sue? Nope! I sinceraly doubt Nintendo would see anything wrong with Regina sporting a Metroid and hench forth making a statement that she loves Metroid and possibly Nintendo too. I sincerly doubt Demon Hunter (having met the band and been fortunate to have talked with them a decent amount more than a lot of people can say) would mind, and can confidently say they would not sue ofer the use of one of their trademarks in association with themselves and me being a fan of theirs. It's not like I'm claiming I created the Demon Hunter symbol or anything. When it all comes down to it, there are plenty of people that have used the wiki to express some outside GW interests through user boxes and sig pics, and no harm has ceom from it thus far. If you wanna cut out anything in the wiki that has been used under fair use, you've got one heck of a job ahead of you. --Wolf 20:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The likelihood of being caught or prosecuted doesn't have an effect on our copyright policies -- it's either compatible or not. Don't bother wikilawyering around that. And actually, I think the amount of things being claimed under Fair Use here is extremely low -- we don't have our jobs cut out in that respect. Nevertheless, even if there were a lot of images claiming Fair Use, that wouldn't mean we would leave them be. That also doesn't affect your images -- whether or not someone else is doing wrong doesn't mean you can do wrong too. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

phhhhh my little agro control banner is up under fair use. I didn't actauly make it, a friend of mine did, fair use. And, you would have one heck of a job cut out for you in the fact that it would cause a mess if you did decide to crack down on all the stuff out there that is being used under fair use. I'm about to be extremely blunt here. I think the lack of being able to use things under fair use is a total load of BS. I could grab a small pic of a yellow block with some diagonal black strips across it that I pulled out a web-making kit out there under fair use, and not be able to use it, when if I made it myself, would look just the same, and would thus fall under fair use. But w/e, thats just me being a little pissed off. But in all due seriousness, what IS Anet's reasoning behind not allowing things under fair use? --Wolf 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The main difference here is that depictions of logos aren't really subject to artistic interpretation, whereas depictions of objects (whether game objects or real-life objects) are. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lies. --Wolf 21:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not consider the image you linked to be a copyright violation (if it were by an independent artist - in this case, it's an album cover, so it'd still be in that category). So no, not lies. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's an album cover, but its an example that it can be artistically interpreted. And actualy, that was done by an out-of-house artist for Demon Hunter, and yes, I know, It's still copywriten. And yes, still lies. --Wolf 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the point was that it's both recognizble as the whatsit band logo and substantially artistically different from the first one.

If that kind of stuff is sufficently different, I almost wonder why a nearly bi-level contour of a shape is considered to be the same as the original image for terms of copyright.

And if artistic modifications are sufficient, Wolf, maybe you could make a cleaner version, clear up the highly jagged fine-resolution edges and make it more icon-like. (Heck, you could try for a tango icon if you really wanted, but), Which might be sufficently different, and would work better as a really small image that dosn't have the space for that kind of jagged detail. Just thinkin' --Star Weaver 04:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that trademark and copyright are totally different things. Trademarks are also mostly irrelevant here, as they are applied to the use of a symbol or name or whatever in a particular trade. --Star Weaver 21:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably 99% of all trademarks are also copy-writen --Wolf 21:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I just said, we don't have a lot of Fair Use images on the wiki, and even if we did, large-scale projects aren't beyond us. This is Emily's response towards Fair Use on the wiki. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Had you not brought this issue up trolling through recent changes there would have likely been no drama at all. Actively chasing out pple who commit harmless violations of policy pushes people away from the wiki and creates more and more wikidrama every time. Please try to think about how your actions are going to affect the wiki when you go out trolling for policy violations which no-one has had an issue with over. Had you not made an issue of this users images or names it would be unreasonable to think any trouble would have come to anyone because of it. Just because you have too much free time doesn't mean you should use it to harass people for doing things which aren't hurting anyone - and no-one but you care about. 122.104.165.13 21:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the deal with my name harassing. It was a valid point and I am taking steps twrads taking care of it. However, I'm taking my time on that since the User Account that my tag seems to conflict with has yet to contribute, and has existed mostlikely since the official wiki was created --Wolf 21:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We have rules on this wiki and in this case, it's a legal rule set up by ArenaNet. It's not my place to allow a violation; it's my place, as a wiki user and a sysop, to let a fellow user know when he is violating a copyright policy. That's not trolling, nor is it disruptive. If Great Darkwolf followed the copyright policy (whether it is from the beginning or after being notified of it -- we don't expect every user to be knowledgeable on the policy, which is why we notify people), we would not have this drama in the first place -- pardon the cliché, but it's not my fault. As I said before, regarding whether other people care about it (which, by the way, is fallacious logic) -- a violation is a violation; and a violation of copyright is more serious than another policy which could have grey areas. We have rules on copyright, and it's everyone's place to follow them. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know why the issue of my spare time was brought into this discussion, but it's certainly not relevant or appropriate. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)