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)