User talk:89.240.238.98

Why are you marking images with deletion because: Copyvio? Unless you can provide some more concrete evidence, like a link to a copyright, then I don't see any problem with those images. (T/C) 08:11, 2 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I disagree. We can't assume that simply because nobody has complained that it's okay for us to use.


 * We've never bothered worrying about image copyright before, but you're right – it's certainly something we should be more diligent about. Are you interesting in writing or porting more detailed image copyright policy into our image use policy? &mdash;Tanaric 08:12, 2 May 2007 (CDT)


 * (Edit conflict)The images are tagged because they are obviously violations of copyrighted images and/or logos. Unless your users ereally are, eg Jimmy Page, Jim Henson, etc. Also, they contain no source references or licensing information. Unless the contributors can stump up a copy of the original permission to reproduce the work here and under these licensing terms, they are delete-fodder. Licensing is something that nobody should take their eye off 89.240.238.98 08:15, 2 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I've posted Image attribution project in hopes that people will work together to solve this glaring oversight. &mdash;Tanaric 08:48, 2 May 2007 (CDT)


 * It is a Herculean, but certainly necessary, labor :/ To many, it will seem to be a killjoy project, when really it is simply abiding by the (admittedly labyrinthine) copyright laws. GuildWiki is in a very privileged position already, having negotiated what seems to be a very good deal with ANet/NCSoft for the Guild Wars images. But that freedom of use has caused a little... slippage with observing the licensing of other images. Admittedly, there are some images which are non-free that the copyright holders are not fussy about - the Firefox logo is a good example (all free advertizing is good advertizing to them!) - but there are many other images amassed here (99% in userspace, most likely) which the copyright holder may under usual circumstances guard quite zealously. The "honor" system in use at the moment whereby uploaders agree to not upload non-free content is clearly failing, and at risk of sounding like a wrecker, I think it does need a wake-up call. At the very least, many of the more obscure works being uploaded without permission may well be the products of starving young graphic designers to whom every cent in royalties is a boon ;) I will attempt to contribute constructively at the talk page of the policy you have instigated, as well as in a less-obviously constructive (I'm loathe to call it purely "destructive") manner by tagging vios. 89.240.238.98 09:06, 2 May 2007 (CDT)