Image of Brown Ben Plumm
Hi Dimadick, I was going to some of the images and noticed the File:Brown Ben Plumm1.jpg image. As the image is from a card game isn't it copyright? I doubt that anybody is allowed to use or even change it. Could have a look at this? Regards, Scafloc 21:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It was posted under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License" at another wiki. I did search for copyright information, but I couldn't find who owns the game. --Dimadick 10:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I found the card wiki where the image comes from. In the right corner below is the copyright sign with the abbreviation FFG. So unless they released after the card was printed FFG holds the copyright. However Igra prestola has requested and received permission to use the card images (see the discussion on Igra's talk page). So we can use the images. The only thing is that usually were are not allowed to cut and past in the images. The rule is to show the complete image or not the use it at all. Oh and we need to use a different copyright tag; permission. Cheers, Scafloc 15:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The page doesn't mention specific permission and "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License" , which is mentioned instead, allows altering or transforming the image. But "you must attribute the work in the manner specified". See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ --Dimadick 20:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I know that with the Commons license you are allowed to make changes. But I think the Card wiki was incorrect in claiming this license. To me it would seem strange that when Igra prestola spoke to FFG they said we could use the images under certain conditions. And then they said to the card wiki that they abondonned their copyright! Because that is baisically the effect if they would release it. I have had contact with FFG in the past and they are usually willing to allow use to show their pictures but they are always explicit that copyright remains with them and they always require us to state this specifically.
- If you are unconvinced we could post a discussion on the forum. Scafloc 23:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Changed notification to include copyright holder, the full name of the company, a link to their official website, the text of permission according to Ingra (though I would appreciate their exact words). Not certain about cutting the image. For all the use of "the image is not altered" in various websites, I could not find explicit information on the subject in United States copyright law. The text explicitly states that it protects the copyright holders from
- "intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation". See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/copyright.act.chapt1b.html
- It also takes note of how the "fair use" of any copyrighted image has an "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
For the time being, the cropped image does not seem to either besmirch the reputation of the company, nor have a negative effect on the value of the work. I am worried that a non-cropped image would instead serve as a commercial and still be deleted. --Dimadick 07:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think it is ok like this. I remember reading that the reason that you normally are not allowed to cut and past in image is mainly that you could make something else of if; a complete new picture or like you said above distort it. And that is certainly not the case. I get your point about using the non cropped image. You could argue that as the company makes it money by selling card game if the card images would be available all over the web it could hurt their sales. People could just print them out. Besides I later noticed that Igra did the same and apparently that was ok (as he told his contact where the image was placed). Cheers, Scafloc 09:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I suppose Tywin could be a disambiguation page instead if you think that would be better for ease of reference