User talk:Tanamoril

community license

As seemingly the copyright master, I have a question on the subject. From what I see we only seem to entertaining CC3 and ~PD licenses. Any chance for some sort of community license scheme (for example). I would much prefer to use dedicated DF fan art than vague vintage paintings. Under such scheme, we can ask the bigger artist (like Kruggsmash to give limited permission for use of their DF related art works on the DF wikis with attribution, instead of releasing it with world wide license. --Jan (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There's already a bit of talk about that on Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Copyrights, but that page is already so cluttered that I can't blame you for not seeing that.

Paizo community license allows the usage of images whose copyright belongs to Paizo to be used in community projects (under the restrictions stated in the license). Since neither Dwarf Fortress community as a whole nor DF wiki are copyright holders of any art, we can't really make our own version of Paizo's community license.

However, if I understood you correctly, you are proposing that we create a license which says "usable on DF wiki alone with attribution", for example. Many files on this wiki are already under such "license".

The problem with such license is that DF wiki in general available under GFDL & MIT. I assume that such open licenses are used so that contents of this wiki could be distributed almost as freely as possible. If we have files which only DF wiki is allowed to use, someone who wants to, say, make a DF tutorial by copying some pages of this wiki would have to remove the images from their copy. Or if someone wants to translate wiki pages to another language and host them on their website, they'd need to get rid of the images with "DF wiki only" license. This line of reasoning is why Wikipedia doesn't allow images with "Wikipedia only" license.

So, in a nut shell, such license is in no way impossible, but it may be incompatible with the values which this wiki is based on. However, as said above, images with such license already exist on this wiki, so the problem is already upon us.

I'm hoping to hold a wider community discussion on this issue later. Tanamoril (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize it already exist and I don't consider it a problem. I think your goal is laudable but I am more concerned with what we can achieve here on the wiki, rather than some vague idea if what someone might be able to achieve elsewhere sometime. Also pragmatically many people might would be more likely to agree to such a license that gives them attribution\exposure than some global license (which future implication they might not understand).

Otherwise, the Paizo community license was indeed just an example of what is possible, the community can decide on the final print for whatever suits our needs. Good luck with getting the wider community discussion going. --Jan (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Cluttered, you say. I added a TOC sometime last year, and I think the 'bit of talk' you're referencing is here, right? Just to be sure. Silverwing235 (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the TOC you added does help somewhat, thank you. However, the discussion under "Images and copyright infringement" is quite long, and I believe only these three messages by you and Voliol are relevant to Jan's question. Tanamoril (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Kruggsmash

Concerning Kruggsmash art work on the wiki, I am not too clear about what "fine with the situation as is" means. Did he said anything else when you talked to him? How should we proceed? leave his works labeled as cc3 or with permission, can we add new ones or? --Jan (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 *checks Discord, facepalms*

Forgot this somehow, but: When I asked, I was told (q.v.) "I do not care if any of my art that I've ever done ends up on the DF wiki". That is, at least, what "fine with the situation as is" means. I can ping the guy again, try and get him to rubberstamp this directly if you want. Silverwing235 (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

So used with {{Permission from license selector}}? --Jan (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

More or less, yes. Silverwing235 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't use Discord, but in my conversation with Silverwing235 I asked the same question. From what he said, Kruggsmash is fine with the CC-licenses that his artworks have right now. There's no need to change them. However, I don't think we should upload more of his art with CC-licenses pulled out of thin air. From Silverwing235's quote above, he allows his art to be uploaded with {{Permission from license selector}} as you said. Tanamoril (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, dude...

I see you slapping delete templates on stuff left and right... You can also replace the images with better, public domain ones as well. -- Zippy (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If you mean "Upload a new version of this file" with replace, I disagree. While the DF wiki doesn't have a guideline regarding uploading new versions of images, I think we should follow Wikimedia Commons guideline in the issue. Replacing an existing image should only be used for minor changes, not for entirely new images. That's even in the name of the function: "a new version of this file" is planly different from "an entirely new file". To quote from the guideline linked above: "Note: do not overwrite a file in order to delete it; follow the Commons:Deletion policy instead."

For me, the most important reason for why different images should be uploaded as different files, instead of different versions of the same file, is because the information on the file page regarding license, author, source etc. is only given for one file. Let's say that you upload art you made yourself, and later I upload my own art as a new version of your file. Both of our art would be on the same page, but only my name would be given as the artist.

Also, in regards to copyright problems, the images are still visible to the public if they have been replaced by a new version, unlike if they'd been deleted. That is still a copyright violation, even if the images violating copyright won't come across the users of this wiki easily.

To clarify, right now I am marking the copyright infringements originating from stock photo sites for deletion per these conversations. Other copyright violations will be marked for deletion eventually.

However, you are right in the sense that I could replace the images I've marked for deletion with new images in the articles, like I did with native silver. For not doing that, I have no excuses: I'm just focusing on going through the copyright violations first before adding new images to articles. Tanamoril (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Image copyright

Would you mind chiming in on a couple recent edits like [1] and [2]? I'm afraid I don't have a good understanding of whether that logic is correct. —Lethosor (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)