User talk:8BitRulez

Speedy deletion of Image:Vertexguy05.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Vertexguy05.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:Vertexguy05.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. jonny-m t 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Vertexguy01.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vertexguy01.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. jonny-m t 04:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC) --jonny-m t 04:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also nominated Image:Vertexguy02.jpg, Image:Vertexguy04.jpg, Image:Vertexguy06.jpg, and Image:Vertexguy07.jpg. In addition, I restored the speedy deletion image on Image:Vertexguy03.jpg, as you simply cropped out the watermark and continued to assert that it was your own work. --jonny-m t 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All images uploaded fall under fair use and public domain. Go to consplayers.com and you can verify it from the source. --8BitRulez 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the source--the source is listed as "consplayers.com" (with an s) both on the image pages and on the watermark of the deleted image. The copyright notice on Consplayers.com states specifically "Do not take images without permission." It is also worth noting that consplayer.com (no s) redirects to cosplaymemories.com, which lists a Creative Commons 2.5 license unless otherwise noted. Even in that case you would not have the right to license it under CC 3.0 and GNU, and you would have to properly attribute the site you took it from...but since that's not the site you took it from, the point it moot.

I have done my best to assume good faith with you thus far, but given that you have now attempted to pass off a copyrighted work as your own by cropping out the watermark and tried to claim that the images are available under "fair use and public domain" by pointing me to the incorrect website, my patience is wearing a bit thin. If you do not fix the images--including listing the correct owner of the copyright (downloading and uploading an image does not count as "making" it)--they will be deleted. If you attempt to sneak through copyrighted material again, it will be deleted and you may well be subject to a block. If you have any genuine questions about copyright or about the image policy on Wikipedia, post them here and I will do my best to answer them. --jonny-m t 13:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a direct quote from http://www.consplayers.com/photopolicies.htm.

"Our ongoing commitment here at Consplayers.com is to provide you, the cosplayer, with high quality photos of you in costume. Although we greatly encourage the usage of the photos we take of you cosplaying, we do kindly ask that you keep our watermark logo on any and all of the digital photos that you use for your own private gallery, website, portfolio, and so on.

When applicable, or when displaying your actual prints (in which the watermark is NOT present) please give written credit as well. This is the only requirement we place on our photo usage. And of course, all photos are copyright of Consplayers.com. Please do not abuse the photo usage privileges, as we try to keep them lenient and fair for everyone. Thank you for your cooperation, and your interest in Consplayers.com. We greatly appreciate your business."

Obviously cropping it does not make it my own, but that doesn't mean I can't legally crop a photo. As stated above, when the watermark is not shown, written credit is all that is needed (which is in the image tag).

http://www.consplayers.com/coppermine/index.php?cat=0 is the link to the photo gallery (which currently appears to be having issues). Any photo I've uploaded not from this site is obtained direct from the source (vertexguy.com) and is once again, free to use (www.vertexguy.com/music). "All photos taken of me are provided by fans and are free for anyone to use in anyway they want."

This is WAY too much work to get a simple image up on this site. Wikipedia needs to rethink its policies. --8BitRulez 10:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase above is "And of course, all photos are copyright of Consplayers.com." You're correct in that you can crop and alter a copyrighted work, but that results in a derivative work; the copyright is still held by the original owner and, as it is a copyrighted work, it must conform to the non-free content criteria on Wikipedia. This policy--and, for that matter, all of the image policies--are based on U.S. law (the Wikimedia servers hosting the site are located in Florida), which is immutable.

To give a specific example, let's say Tom has written a book that he has copyrighted. If you make a copy of that book, change one sentence, and release it as your own, it qualifies as a derivative work and is subject to Tom's copyright...which means that you are subject to the mercy of Tom's lawyers. Now, if Tom releases the book under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License, you can make the changes and release the book under your name without fear of his lawyers. However, in that case you would have to release the material under the same license that Tom released it under, as he remains the copyright holder, which means that he dictates how his work can be used--given the specific requirements of the license, you would also have to note Tom as the original author and (I believe) provide the original text upon request. This method of ensuring that material remains free while protecting the rights of the original author is known as copyleft, and it is legally enforceable in the same way that copyright is.

The short version of this story, then, is that Wikipedia will not change its image policy because Wikipedia cannot change its image policy. They are in place to protect the project, and as such they should not be taken lightly. If you are still confused as to what you can release as your own work (please note that Wikipedia only accepts self-made items submitted under a free license), you may find this explanation on Wikimedia Commons to be very helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions! --jonny-m t 02:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]