Talk:Harlequin Airs

I think the same discussion as for All the Queen's Men - Victoria Racklyft & Suzan Lovett applies here. Large covers shouldn't be copied to the archive (unless the artist made put a license on allowing that of course, or permission to archive it here is given otherwise), just like whole fanfics wouldn't be archived. People should go to the original site where the art is, especially if a feedback link is there for comments the artist can get. Thumbnails are one thing, but 600x800px is not okay, IMO.--Ratcreature 03:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a smaller version of this picture. However, there is a second version here, uploaded in January and used on both the Professionals and Suzan Lovett's page in the wiki. If the bigger versions aren't allowed, they should be deleted from the file history.--Doro 10:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the guidelines are not very clear on what the rules for images are here. Not just that a policy for how to treat potentially disturbing images is still absent, everything else is very fuzzy too. Last time I talked about this wrt to fanart and covers especially online published works (in Talk:Courts_of_Honor_-_Syn_Ferguson) I was just told that it was just "fair use" to put images here and that the wiki didn't need clearer rules and policies and that it was better to leave things since you couldn't cover everything in advance anyway, so it would be better to not put any more rules down. I disagree quite a bit with that stance, but that was the last thing I heard about this when I argued about covers, proper credit, not siphoning off traffic from online artists and so on the last time. I can see the fair use if what is put here is not equal to the real thing (like you can't 'quote' a whole book and then say it is fair use, but just a bit), but IMO it is not right to archive the full thing. The rules also say this is not an archive for fanworks, and fanart shouldn't be signled out to be okay to just copy.--Ratcreature 11:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say about not archiving the full thing. I think in the absence of any other rules the best course of action is to continue to handle it the way we have so far and maybe add an attention gardeners notice to the talk page of the zine or file where the high resolution artwork is linked. For what it's worth, I feel different about the artwork when it's a picture of the physical copy of a fanzine, magazine or maybe a piece of fancraft. But if there is no discernible difference between the artwork itself and the copy here, then the copy here should be replaced with a smaller version. (Unless, of course, the artist has given permission, but then it should be noted in the info box when uploading the file.) ETA: Incidentally, I said the same thing you said about "competing" with the artwork here--Doro 11:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to be a dope and but don't understand all the rules, don't want to siphon, don't want to put wrong things in wrong sizes up, don't want to antagonize anyone, don't want to be the wiki-I-won't- say, and am wondering if I should skip putting in covers all together.Mrs. Potato Head 12:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nooooo! Don't worry about that!!! You are not alone in this! That's where other people come in, like maybe ratcreature or me, who will fix something if they think it needs fixing. A page doesn't have to be perfect and no one can be right all the time. Changing and fixing and changing things again is what a wiki is all about! This is a collaboration. You are doing great! :) --Doro 12:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think nobody has a problem with small to moderately sized cover images of printed zines, i.e. the kind of image you see everywhere on book pages to illustrate covers and also with zine sellers, on ebay, on zine lists... i.e. the vast majority of the covers you upload. Those are not controversial as far as I can gather. The difference in opinion starts when it comes to cases like uploaded images that come in better quality directly from an online art site, like the circuit archive (like here when the uploaded image is not a photo or scan of the physical zine). I think people should go there, to the archive, to view the full art, it shouldn't be uploaded here in its full quality, unless the artist is explicitly okay with it. IMO the default assumption should be that the artist wants people to go to their site or the archive they have chosen to look at the art and have the opportunity to get feedback. Others in the discussion I linked previously think differently about that.--Ratcreature 12:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re Doro, above: I admit that I was quite disappointed that the wiki commitee member in that conversation we had seemed to completely dismiss my concern about diverting traffic and feedback (and also control over the artwork of course) and just claimed that interested people would follow links to comment anyway, so it was all fine even if higher resolutions were archived in the wiki. That runs counter to usual standards for fanworks too, IMO, like I still remember the complete outrage similar actions provoked among fanfic writers when some other fan archived their favorite fic written by others without permission (but with full credit) because they didn't know the etiquette and just thought it cool to have a collection of their favorite stuff. Nobody in that case thought it was okay. I am also really unclear what kind of license art uploaded here then has. I mean, I assume just someone uploading it doesn't give it a CC license (I don't think you can give something a license if you don't really own it), but for example if one of my own fanart pieces were fit to illustrate something, I would still never upload it here, certainly not in a high resolution, because I think if I uploaded my own material I might release my art under a CC license, just like I do when I submit text. Which I do not want to.--Ratcreature 12:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that I agree with you when it comes to the handling of artwork. :) The discussions about licensing and policies should probably happen in the fanlore community where more people can see them. As your and mine approach is stricter than what Melina said in that one comment (and she also said we should use common sense; the image linked there right now is a copy of the physical zine which I don't think is the same as posting online artwork), it's probably safe to implement it anyway because it grants a higher standard of protection for the artist and no one has argued in any of the discussions about specific examples that in that particular case the higher resolution absolutely needs to stay. A thumbnail is not the original piece therefore I don't think thumbnails grant licenses for anything other than a thumbnail, which we said is fair use anyway. Another approach for web art would be to take a screenshot of the artwork in its context (like somewhere in the middle of the page, above the text or whatever) and use a thumbnail of the screenshot, so that it can't compete with the original art and it's visible that it's not the original art. --Doro 13:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)