File talk:Fools of Us All.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
If someone takes a screencap or promo photo and adds the title of a fic to it, does that make them the creator of the photo? Saying that we have the permission of the creator is wrong IMO. It should still be marked as fair use because the creation of the cover relies strongly on fair use and that doesn't just disappear. As this is a photo, the permission status makes it look like we have the permission of the Merlin creators. --Doro (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. Perhaps photomanips, icons, banners and wallpapers and screencaps of websites that use images from the TV show would fall under this situation because they all use screencaps/promo photos. However, I think that because this is a screencap of the pod cover "in use", that saying we have permission to upload the "screencap of the podfic cover" should be OK. Same would go for a screenscap of a vid, BTW which also uses clips from the TV shows and transforms them. The generic permission has to stretch to cover many types of medium.--MeeDee (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think a vidder can give permission to upload a screencap of a vid because they don't have the rights to give that permission. I'm not sure what you mean by "because this is a screencap of the pod cover "in use", that saying we have permission to upload the "screencap of the podfic cover" should be OK." Do you mean permission of the screencapper? I made the screencap and uploaded it, so obviously it's not here against my wishes, but I don't think that's all that's relevant or the most important thing when it comes to the permission status of the content of this image. --Doro (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Instead of using the "Permission" keyword we could write out explicitly that the podfic cover is used with permission, which uses the photo in accordance with fair use... But I wouldn't want to be in a position of having to judge "how transformative" something is before we could accept permission from the fanwork creator instead of the canon creator. I don't think I should have to specify that the characters in a fanart drawing are fair use and not used with permission, so where would I draw the line? Photomanips? Heavily referenced drawings? I think we can say that we have permission from creator of the actual work we're using (in this case the podfic cover) and then let Fanlore:Copyright and the OTW's general policy cover us for the use of copyrighted material within those fanworks. --sparc (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Drawings aren't a problem IMO, photo material is the one that's tricky. I would keep the "fair use" as permission status and add the "permission" of the cover creator to the description field. That's one of the reasons why demanding permission before upload would get tricky very soon because often there is more than one party involved when it comes to giving that permission or it's not exactly clear who has the rights to give permission for what. --Doro (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- sparcicle, you said it better than I did. I think what may be throwing people is that the word "image" is used and there are two images: the underlying original image (from the TV show) and the transformed image that we're uploading with the permission of the 'creator' of the now transformed image. If the generic wording said: "Item is uploaded with the creator's permission" it might be less confusing. But I think this is linguistic nicety. However, saying the item is fair use in one place and then adding the comment "but we have permission" elsewhere is (a) confusing and (b) puts the uploader in the position of attempting judge how transformative a wallpaper or an icon is in advance.--MeeDee (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. Including permission for an item where the creator doesn't necessarily have the rights to give permission is confusing. Therefore I think it's better to stick to fair use. --Doro (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to me that according to the OTW's legal policy regarding transformative use that fanwork creators should have the rights to give permission for use of their fanworks. (Maybe this is something Legal could clarify? Not that I want to burden them with more work...) I do agree that the wording of the "Permission" keyword could be confusing in some cases. My vote is that for something like this we just say "Permission to use this podfic cover granted by cybel" and not address the permission of the Merlin image at all--it's still fair use even if we don't say so explicitly on the image page. --sparc (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think something like "Permission to use this podfic cover granted by cybel" is fine. It's the more general "This image is used with the permission of its creator." that I don't think is correct or accurate in these cases because there is more than one creator and more and than one party involved who could possibly give permission for something. --Doro (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to me that according to the OTW's legal policy regarding transformative use that fanwork creators should have the rights to give permission for use of their fanworks. (Maybe this is something Legal could clarify? Not that I want to burden them with more work...) I do agree that the wording of the "Permission" keyword could be confusing in some cases. My vote is that for something like this we just say "Permission to use this podfic cover granted by cybel" and not address the permission of the Merlin image at all--it's still fair use even if we don't say so explicitly on the image page. --sparc (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. Including permission for an item where the creator doesn't necessarily have the rights to give permission is confusing. Therefore I think it's better to stick to fair use. --Doro (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- sparcicle, you said it better than I did. I think what may be throwing people is that the word "image" is used and there are two images: the underlying original image (from the TV show) and the transformed image that we're uploading with the permission of the 'creator' of the now transformed image. If the generic wording said: "Item is uploaded with the creator's permission" it might be less confusing. But I think this is linguistic nicety. However, saying the item is fair use in one place and then adding the comment "but we have permission" elsewhere is (a) confusing and (b) puts the uploader in the position of attempting judge how transformative a wallpaper or an icon is in advance.--MeeDee (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Drawings aren't a problem IMO, photo material is the one that's tricky. I would keep the "fair use" as permission status and add the "permission" of the cover creator to the description field. That's one of the reasons why demanding permission before upload would get tricky very soon because often there is more than one party involved when it comes to giving that permission or it's not exactly clear who has the rights to give permission for what. --Doro (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
