File talk:Assassin.jpg

Assassin would imply the new class in guild wars and not some flowers ... wouldn't it? | Chuiu 16:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this image exclusively licensed to CGW by ANet? --theeth 00:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would believe so. This should be deleted.  --Rainith 00:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I got Jenosavel's permission to crop and use his touched-up wallpaper version of the CGW cover. Maybe he will even create a better version for GuildWiki.
 * When I first saw the wallpaper in GWGuru is was wondering too if that might be a copyright violation, but it's been on the GWGuru front page for a few days now, and nobody seems to have complained, so I guess it's okay for both ANet and CGW. -- 00:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and ANet used the same artwork in their PvP weekend banner. I don't think there are any exclusive rights for CGW here. -- 00:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Enlighten me, is Jenosavel the original artist? Or just the person who cropped out all the stuff from the CGW cover?  If he/she is the original artist, then you are correct and you have my apologies for deleting this.  If he/she is not the original artist then we would be in violation of copyright by posting this, which is why I did not wait to delete it.  --Rainith 00:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He is not the original artist. He just photoshopped the CGW cover, removing all the text (which must have been a helluvalot of work). Copyrights on the internet are a tricky thing. But I don't think we're gonna get sued here. On the Assassin article I gave the source for the image. We got it from GuildWarsGuru, who've had it on their main page for a few days now. GWG is one of the top 5 GW fansites, and ANet (Gaile Gray and a few others) visit it on a daily basis. I'm sure the wallpaper didn't slip past ANet's attention, and obviously they didn't request for it to be taken down. They are the original copyright holders after all, not CGW. And even if CGW sends out any cease and desist letters, GWGuru should be the first to get one. If GWG take down the image, we can do too. I think we are safe here. Should I re-upload the image? -- 00:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems especially ironic to me that you posted the pic on a page that had the warning about scans that (I believe) you wrote. I think we should just wait until Friday, when we'll have more than enough opportunities to get in-game pics of Assassins.  --Rainith 00:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed I wrote the disclaimer, and indeed I'm generally cautious about such issues. It would have been very easy to crop for example the ingame screenshots posted on IGN, but that would be a no-no. But in my eyes this one is slightly different, for the reasons explained above. Anyway ... if anybody is seriously concerned, we'll leave the article without images 'til Friday. Or we just crop the original CGW cover (not touched up), linking to the source. -- 00:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One more aspect. Think about it: What is CGW's main interest? They wanna sell their magazine! Is anybody not going to buy the mag because he saw the touched up cover image on GuildWiki? Clearly not. Quite the opposite. If we link back to the original cover art (which is all over the internet anyway, spread by CGW staff) we're even giving CGW free advertising. We're not harming their interest, and they have no reason to blame us for anything.
 * On a side note, ironically you can find the complete CGW article, word by word, posted on the IGN GW forums. No moderator stepped in to remove it. Looks like IGN don't mind copyright issues. Maybe we should have used the IGN screenshot instead of the CGW cover. ;) -- 04:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between posting something that is breaking copyright and being cited for it. If you post something that is copyrighted you run the risk of being sent a letter from lawyers, that doesn't mean that you will be.  I don't think we want to run that risk, period.  If you have large sums of money to spend defending against lawsuits, fine post it on your personal site.  :P  Anyway, I'd rather we have a more interesting, "unique" in-game shot, than the one that you say everyone has.  If everyone has it, what is the point of us having it?  --Rainith 04:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand you concerns. We'll wait until Friday and take a few nice high-res screenshots. -- 04:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the image is exclusively CGWs, as they continue using it. Since the Terms of Use gives the permission to use any Guild Wars or Arena Net art I don't think a problem exists; the terms of use clearly give permission for fansites to use images, sound files, animations etc., provided the copyright is acknoledged; this pertains also to all screenshots and images from in game- ANet owns all the screenshots you take, and to post one you need to acknowledge it.  Not to be a pain, but if you are serious about the issue you should ensure that every bit of text from the game (including skill descriptions), every image and screenshot carries one of these statements:

Guild WarsÂ© is a trademark of NCsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

ArenaNetÂ®

Â©2005 ArenaNet, Inc. All rights reserved. ArenaNet, Arena.Net and the ArenaNet logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCsoft Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries.


 * Since I suspect the image is Anet property, it is to my knowledge covered by the terms of use. You've got ANet text and images on nearly every page, and since you aren't using it for gain the damages don't exist; clearly, using any of it on T-shirts would be a violation, as it is for commercial use, which violates the terms of use.  Not a big deal, I don't mind waiting for an in-game screenshot, but remember that in-game screenshots are STILL Anet's property, and the exact same restrictions apply to them.--Epinephrine 10:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Epinephrine: I don't think anybody here is concerned that we might violate ANet's copyrights. The concern is that ANet may have granted exclusive rights for that specific image to CGW, so we might be violating CGW's copyrights. -- 10:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Epinephrine, you and Tetris L are probably right, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. I know when this article was first published, it was reprinted word for word in a couple of forums and then rather quickly taken down with the note that Gaile had asked the post be removed.  That may have just been done to give the magazine time to sell a little on the newsstands, or that may be their general policy.  In the past with this chapter 2 stuff we have made a point of not posting anything that could be considered copyrighted/exclusive/etc... and I think that we should continue to do that.  Then when Factions comes out in retail, we can treat it the same as we do the core stuff.  --Rainith 10:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)