File talk:Ranger Kurzick Female 15k(front).jpg

Possible license violation by GWO wiki
This image has been used without attribution at. Who's going to open the can of worms? 69.86.62.75 22:34, 1 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I certainly think this is an important issue. Legally we do need to see some kind of attribution to Stabber of GuildWiki. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this before I go over there and try to be diplomatic? :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:56, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Looking at the GWO wiki they may actually be a license violation besides avoiding attribution. We use a "share-alike" license:


 * "Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one."


 * Whereas they use a "no-derivs", which is incompatible.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 08:04, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I take that back, the no-derivs is only for the older content on the site.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 08:18, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Whatever you do use the forums, they don't check discussion pages. (I don't get that, I posted about their spambot troubles on "User:Admin"'s page and he's posting the next day and not seeing that?! Unless it's a bot or has talk messages turned off &mdash; Skuld 08:27, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
 * It may be advisable to use the pm feature on their forums to message one of the moderators in order to contact them -- sometimes they get their hackles up if you "dis" a mod in a forum. As it's one of the wiki mods who posted this image, so I'm sure they'll respond kindly if someone pm's them. --Zampani 11:16, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Is there solid proof that GuildWiki did not steal that image from gwonline, or that gwonline does not have permission to use it from the original author? Before you accuse gwo, you should be sure of your sources.


 * None of us are sure if it is allowed or not, someone needs to check up on that. I'm pretty sure we had it before them :s GWOwiki wasn't even up when that was uploaded &mdash; Skuld 12:31, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * WP has strict copyright tagging for images for this reason. For whatever reason, we deleted most old revisions of our images, so we don't know who the original uploader is or what the summaries were for those revisions.  We're actually violating the CC license since we no longer have the original uploader in the revision history.  --Fyren 12:35, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * In that case it is better to delete this image and start over. I am fairly certain that gwo had this image first in their forums, and guildwiki has (probably inadvertently) used that image. Searching for better proof now...


 * this might help, the original is 8 hours older than the current &mdash; Skuld 12:45, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * That user FailCondition also uploaded Image:Kurzick15k-silver.JPG, which seems to be a different player model. Neither version (the one by Stabber and the one by FailCondition) seem to be in the 15k armor thread on gwo, though, so I might be misremembering. Still recommend starting from a clean slate.


 * Firstly, no one has made any accusations or anything, and I doubt any of the admins here would do so until we have all the facts, so thanks for your concern anon, but no need to panic yet :)


 * If there is any doubt as to the person who took the screenshot then we should probably not take this any further.


 * I wasn't aware that we weren't keeping a track of all users contributions. Why were old revisions deleted? Anyway, I don't think we should remove this image, but nor do I think we should make a fuss about this unless there is a strong suggestion that this image was taken by a member of the GuildWiki.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:05, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Keep disc space down I guess, I don't think any of us that has been deleting old revisions saw any reason not to &mdash; Skuld 13:09, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I didn't realise anyone had been. :/ I would have certainly argued against it if I had known. Unless Gravewit made any direct request for old revisions to be deleted, in which case I would argue with him instead :P  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:19, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * The old image was a different model, as you can easily see from Image:Ranger Kurzick Female 15k (Chest & Feet)(front).jpg. 85.178.102.53 16:11, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, so it does look as though Stabber uploaded a new set of images for this armor.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:33, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

I'm a little upset that people started deleting old image revisions without asking about it. Those are pretty much the only thing that we cannot reclaim as admins.

That said, since any screenshot taken from within Guild Wars is property of ArenaNet, I don't think we have a leg to stand on here. We've never written them to request permission to post their intellectual property all over the place. That said, I've used this argument consistantly for the last year and a half and nobody has taken it seriously yet, so I don't expect it to be taken seriously now. &mdash;Tanaric 03:33, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't know if that's necessarily the case, Tanaric. For example, if you were to take a photograph of the Statue of Liberty then that picture would not be owned by New York city, or the state of New York, or even the designer of the statue.


 * I know if anyone else had posted a screenshot on the GuildWiki that was taken from another site we would replace it.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:40, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Tanaric is right that ANet would hold a stake in the copyright of a game screenshot but so does the screenshotter as the creator of a derivitive work (assuming enough creativity went into it, which is vague even in the law). Photographing a statue is much the same, and the Statue of Liberty was copyrighted .  If ANet wanted the wiki to remove every GW image, we would have to do so aside from images where we could come up with fair use justification.  --Fyren 09:58, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not sure I agree with you, Biro. I know that Neuschwanstein in Germany prohibits taking pictures inside the castle, because they produce their own photographs and artwork, and they'd lose money if random photographs were easy to come by. I think Windsor is the same way. In any case, it's pretty common to prevent the spread of unlicensed photographs, even in the real world. &mdash;Tanaric 15:47, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Well coincedentally I've found Stabbie yesterday so I have informed her of this issue. Hopefully if she was the original person who screenshotted and uploaded it, she'll let me know or confront GWO directly. - 07:55, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * According to Stabber, it's her image. However, it's on the ranger character of the account she obtained from Esan, and she does not know whether Esan gave GWOnline permission to use it.  And if Esan gave GWOnline permission, then Stabber's fine with GWOnline using the image. - 08:16, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Hah. And how did "FailCondition" get a hold of a screenshot of her ranger? Did she post it in a forum? If yes, then we can expect they got it from there, not from us. --Karlos 16:37, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think "FailCondition" uploaded this image... have I missed something?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:56, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * All the image galleries have a naming scheme. It's easier to upload the right filename than change the article.  --Fyren 17:15, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * As someone pointed out earlier, you can see from the history of Image:Ranger Kurzick Female 15k (Chest & Feet)(front).jpg that FailCondition uploaded images of a different model.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:39, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah. I didn't know that when you tried to access an older image that does not exist the wiki throws the newer version at you. Anyways. The question is, did Stabber upload the image here only or did she upload it to other forums as well? We could just go ask GWOWiki where they got their image from, we have no reason to assume they will lie. If they took it from us then they owe us attribution. --Karlos 19:24, 4 September 2006 (CDT)