We're looking for authors and image contributors! To join the Spanking Art wiki community, create a login and you're ready to get started!

From Spanking Art

[edit] Use of images via "Fair Use"

Currently this wiki does not permit images under non-free licenses, and does not permit images which can only be used by virtue of a claim of "Fair use". This generally means that movie clips and stills, comics, and commercially published images first published in 1964 or later cannot be used, and such images published betweeen 1924 and 1963 can only be used if it can be determined that the copyright was not renewed, which is non-trivial. Obviously including such images would enhance a number of the articles, but there are problems with permitting this. Wikipedia and some of the other wikia wikis permit such fair use images -- detailed policies differ. It would be legal, under the wikia terms of use for us to make a policy permitting images used under a fair use claim (soemtimes called "fair use images", altough strictly spaking this description in inaccurate -- the images are not fair use, rather the license is). -Mercy ^(talk) 18:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pros of allowing "fair use images"

• It would permit us to use a number of images which would significantly enhance various articles.
• It would avoid a policy more restrctive than US copyright law requires.
• It would avoid the need for tedious checking of images from 1924-1963 which are probably but not certianly out of copyright.

[edit] Cons of allowing "fair use images"

• It would require a justification for each such use of each image.
• It would include content which might well infringe local copyright laws in countries other than the US ("fair use" is a rather unique concept in US copyright law, not shared by the law of other countries).
• It might cause problems for reusers of our content. Commercial re-use might not qualify as fair use, and reuse by a non-US publisher could be a problem also. Thus each re-user would need to check each image, and consider whether the justification for the "fair use" of that image applied to the proposed re-use.
• A good many people on the net misunderstand fair use, and treat it as an excuse to upload and use any copyrighted image that they please -- Wikipedia has had considerable problems with unjustified or dubious fair use claims. This might be an even larger problem with sexually oriented images.
• Claims of fair use are never as certian, legally, as statemetns that an item is or is not under copyright. Fair use claims are only determined on a case-by-case basis -- the guiding principles are just that: guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

Thanks a lot Mercy, this is a good overview. I might add that if we allow fair use images here, we practically allow uploading any copyrighted work on the claim of "fair use". For many, perhaps most, of these images, we will face the situation will be that the uploader claims fair use, but we are not so sure if the requirements for fair use are actually met in this particular case or not. It will mean an enormous extra effort for us (us admins, in particular) to evaluate every uploaded "fair use" image on a case-by-case basis - and to explain and justify our decision if we come to the conclusion that the image (i.e. its use here) does probably not qualify for fair use. I fear it will tire us out, eat a lot of resources, and potentially cause much dispute to explain why e.g. image A stolencopied from website B qualifies for fair use in our eyes, but image C from website D does not. --Spankart 11:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requiring rights to mofify images

If you HOST is forcing this on you, I here by recommend the disuse of ALL image on the Wiki. it is an unreasonable request the the host.

Protecting themselves from unauthorised use of the image is one thing. But forcing artist to forgot the rights to control darivitve works is unethical. it is Totally unessary for Wiki goals, if the image is not suitible for use with out modication, then don't use it. But thats not reason for disallowing the use of image that don't require modifcation. Roguebfl 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several reasons why this policy is in place.

1. A prime value of wikia (like the wikipedia project from which it grew) is "Freee Content" meaning content that any user can reuse in any way at all. Wikpedia has, for example, rejected images whose creators wanted to require that they not be used in advertising

   Irrelevent, Free use does not require modication rights. Roguebfl 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Images realsed under any of the more common free licenses, such as the GFDL or most of the creative commons licenses, grant this permission. And of course, it applies to all public domain images. It is also the sam permisison granted for all submitted text.
3. The automatically resalled images used in msot articles are, in fact, derivitive works, although a more limited license could permit rescaling without permitting other changes
4. There are many images available under these restrictions.

If you don't agree with thsi policy (and there is a case to be made agaisnt it) it can be debated and changed on Wikia central. Feel free to raise the matter there. -Mercy ^(talk) 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope I Don't need to debat it there, i need to debate it HERE about THIS wiki comply with a policy the Removes nessairly rights unessarly, which to me has two eitherical option 1) Stop using image. 2) Find another host Roguebfl 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We chose 1) and stopped using the image that did not comply with our image use policy. If wikia, or this wiki, chooses to limit its image use in this way, it may be unwise (that can be debated) but it is not immoral, and there is no moral requirement not to use images that do fit these limitations, merely because some images that are otherwise desirable do not. I wish we could have used the image in question. I went to considerable trouble to ask for the permission we need. The creators chose not to grant it. End of story. -Mercy ^(talk) 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikia:Talk:Wikia copyrights#Images not allowing derived works, where I raised this issue for wikia consideration. -Mercy ^(talk) 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of Products

What would be the licensing type for an Image taken of a products, Assuming the Photographer were to Public domain their rights to the Photo they took, would the be any licence conflicts resulting from the rights of the product? --Roguebfl 09:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the product, as fas as I know. If the product is a three-dimensional object (e.g. a mug), making a photo of it is a creative act and thus such a picture enjoys its own copyright. If the product is two-dimensional, such as a painting or drawing, making a photo of it (even if you shoot from an angle) is not considered a creative act and thus enjoys the same copyright protection as the original. Thus if anyone takes a photo of the Mona Lisa painting (which is public domain due to its age), you can use it freely without asking the photographer for permission. But if anyone takes a photo of Michelangelo's David, you can not use it unless the photographer licenses it. So it depends on whether the product is two- or three-dimensional. If you take a photo (or scan) of a copyrighted drawing, cartoon or comic strip, you must not publish this photo without permission from the copyright holder of the original artwork. Spankart 10:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External version internal hosted embedded Images

I think I got a good idea on the answer of what this is to be, but it is something I would like Spelt out in the Image use policy. Is there any difference in licence requirements of on internal and external hosted embedded images? --Roguebfl 10:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment we don't allow the embedding of externally hosted images (also known as image hotlinking or inline linking) because a) it is bandwidth theft, b) the site that hosts the image may not like the placement in our wiki. I asked about this topic a few months back at the Wikia Watercooler - see the discussion there. So if you find a hotlinked image here in the Spanking Art Wiki, please change it into a coldlinked image (make it a clickable link by adding square brackets around the URL) or, if the license permits, upload it to the wiki. Spankart 20:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This rule (image hotlinking is not permitted) could be changed, if requested, to allow hotlinking from hosts that explicitly allow hotlinking their files on other sites. We could create and maintain a whitelist of permitted hosts. But at the moment I think it's simpler to not allow any hotlinking. Spankart 21:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with the rules as is, the main reason I wanted it spelt out was the clarify or close any loopholes in licence differences, i.e. if it the fact it was not hosted by the wiki if it would get around the wiki licence issues allowing a publisher to have their products displayed here and not surrender the copyright similar to how the banner adds don't auto become GFDL, or allow artists to do the distribute but don't alter...which i now see was part of question at the water cooler that was not answered --Roguebfl 14:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't answered but I think it should be a possible way. The embedded YouTube videos are also external material which is hotlinked here, and so are the banner ads. So I'd say any artist who wants to put (or allow others to put) their copyrighted and non-free-licensed images on this wiki could host them on an external site which allows hotlinking. The hosted image would need to be in exactly the size we need since we can't resize it. We could then whitelist this external site and use the image here, preferrably with a caption underneath that says something like "This image is external and not part of this wiki" plus some copyright/license information. Spankart 21:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, I've been toying with the idea of a flickr and photobucket template that can be used in the case we do decide to allow them, that will forfill their hotlinking requirements (things like link back), but I need an image that currently works hotlinked to test things out as I develop them --Roguebfl ^(talk) 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/images/logo.gif

http://www.furrysoft.de/screenshots/tigger/plugins/SmileyTicker.png

The Google and the smiley image should be working (both work on main Wikia), but aren't working here right now. Maybe they already disabled hotlinking (except for special whitelisted domains). Spankart 21:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

would consider requested something being whitelisted? there a few things I want to try by I need a working image to test a few options. --Roguebfl ^(talk) 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, try to ask for whitelisting flickr or photobucket here. Spankart 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well as the very beginning has a request to use the contact link, I used that instead, hopefully it will work as it not like I'm staff here, just an active user ;) --Roguebfl ^(talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No contemporary photos of minors

Should that not be 18-20 years, not 50, for then they are not minors. Because I surely do not want to have to wait ill I'm 50-70 years old to use pictures of my --Roguebfl ^(talk) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)self.

[edit] How to specify the source and license

Now that we have Templates for GPL and LGPL ({{GPL}} and {{LGPL}} respectively) should the bed add the this section? --Roguebfl ^(talk) 20:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, done. Spankart 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

good, but you need to check your Usage link on {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}--Roguebfl ^(talk) 17:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Spankart 18:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that Template:T is work how about using on this page so that {{GFDL}} is set via {{t|<GFDL>}} ? --Roguebfl ^(talk) 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, done. Spankart ^(talk) 13:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I Renamed {{Cc-by-2.0}} to {{CC-BY-2.0}} for naming consistency (the old name still works)

Secondly I made {{BSD}} (with the optional {{BSD|<attribution>}}) as it is listed as an acceptable license n our copyright pages --Roguebfl ^(talk) 23:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image use request dilemma

To following discourse with mainely musings over these two images fount and back views of shortalls.

problem the never got around to edited their copyright notice. --Roguebfl ^(talk) 19:54, 25 April 2008 (BST)

According to my understanding of law they don't have to edit the copyright notice in Flickr but they have to say explicitly "I release this image under the so-and-so license", for example in an e-mail. Perhaps you can get them to do this. The reply "You can use the images if you like" could be interpreted such that they agree to any of the licenses you suggested, but it's better to be on the safe side - some people are not aware that when they put an image under a CC license they allow anyone to use it according to the terms of the license, not only the person/website who asked for it. Anyway, AFAIK it is not a problem if there is a wrong (outdated) copyright notice in Flickr as long as we have some way to prove that the copyright holder agreed to another license. Spankart 23:01, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Well we have the emails that I quoted. --Roguebfl ^(talk) 01:11, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Okay, then let's assume for now that the interpretation is correct, and you can use the images. I'd suggest CC-BY-SA as it's more restrictive than CC-BY. Spankart 09:20, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Problem solved for use they finally did it 8) the went with CC-BY. --Roguebfl ^(talk) 02:51, 27 April 2008 (BST)