GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.



I separated the optional attributes from the minimal attributes because people have a habit of adding the <optional:user notes> part and not removing it when they paste the code, another option is to define this in the templates as representing a blank. -- Xeon 14:39, 9 May 2007 (CDT)


"This is a screenshot of the game Guild Wars, and the copyright for it is held by the company that developed the game. The use of the image qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise."

Is this accurate? Do screenshots belong to ANet? I thought that screenshots and machinima fall into the same category as collages, photographs of copyrighted subjects and other similar derivative works, with the graphics belonging to ANet, but the "camera angle" and other unique elements belonging to the "photographer". I don't think we could just swipe any Guild Wars screenshot from the internet. -- Gordon Ecker 19:33, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Screen capture or user-created image?[]

If I take a screen shot then add lines, text boxes etc to the image, is that still a screen capture?

ya RT | Talk 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It depends how much you change really. However, if you chose the wrong license, its probably not the end of the world. —JediRogue 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GW screenshot: Terms of use[]

Good explanation of templates en licensing use ! Anyway, I thought maybe it is good to explain or link to the when describing GW screenshot license. It is good to know that it has some 'additional' requirements (no hack/cheats, porn, etc.) attached to it.-- Merty sign.gif-- ( talk ) 07:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I knew I'd forget something. That is linked from the policy page, but it should be here as well. Dr Ishmael 14:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain icons or Copyvio?[]

While the GW:IMAGE policy specifies what tags to use, scratching my head over this one, because don't know if the following images are copyrighted by their respective owners or has the owner-organisations flagged them as public domain. Is there a way to confirm?

Likely others, but these are the ones I've stumbled across so far, thoughts? --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 00:07, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

The AIM icon appears to be fair use rather than "public domain" or a violation. Lots of websites use social networking/consumer icons to identify links to e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Amazon. Thecartaker91, Wizardboy777, seem to be using the icons to identify with the brands (AIM IDs, MSN address, ...).
We could offer {{Fair-use icon}} (based on {{Fair-use image}}) to make this more obvious, something like:
  {{Fair-use icon
    |source = <official website> <-- filled in by user
    |author = <product name> <-- filled in by user
    |reasoning = Fair use of icon to promote, identify with, or otherwise support non-GW product identified above.
    |usableonuserpage = is usable on user and talk pages
    |usernotes = <required: context in which icon is used> <-- filled in by user
Most of the fields could get auto-filled (since they should be the same for such icons). Hope this helps.
Full disclosure: I use corporate icons/logos on my home page here in this manner.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:23, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Not really conversant with these "social network" programs, but fair use might probably covers it (would be nice if someone could link to some sort of legal disclaimer from these service providers to be sure). Don't think we'd need to differentiate between "icon" and "image", much the same thing in this context. So if "fair use" covers GuildWiki/Wikia, then would say we just use the Fair-use image template (no need to over-complicate things :). --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 01:47, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
The icon template would autofill the existing fair-use template, since, in theory, icon usage should fall under parallel circumstances (not unique to each situation, as with {{Fair-use image}}. I'm in favor of whichever method is easier for the casual user (trying to figure out how to tag their image) and the wiki-protector (e.g. Wolfie), who has to fix image tags without recompense.
I think linking back to the brand's home page is sufficient (and longer lasting; any other link could change resulting in redlink). The point of fair-use is that we don't have to get specific permission from the corporations: there's no court on earth that would punish me for choosing to link to AIM, even if I represent that link with an icon. There are ways to use these images outside of fair use, but I doubt anyone here is going to intentionally or accidentally run foul of the rules (or, in Doc Ish's case, run fowl).  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:05, July 2, 2010 (UTC)