Forum:Question about magazines YRB and Go Big
From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Been wanting to ask about this for a few months and now have the magazines in my lap.
- Question #1: Does anyone else have a copy of the magazines YRB #45 and/or Go Big #3 ?
- YRB #45 (a glossy magazine) has a photo feature on "furries". Furry content: *1* a mention on the cover. *2* a blurb in the table of contents, *3* an article consisting of half-a-page of text and SEVEN pages photos of "furries" (nudity in all photos).
- Go Big #3 (a glossy magazine that was free and is now defunct). Page 22 is about Christopher Richard and the furry content is the BIG photo of Chris and "his dear boy and renowned plushophile Scott Anderson, in a Richards original." Scott is wearing a fursuit.
- Question #2: Which YRB pages should I scan and upload to wikifur?
- 2a) YRB cover? There's no furry content other than the word "FURRIES" on cover. How large? 400 pixels wide?
- 2b) YRB table of contents? (I'm inclined to not scan it in)
- 2c) All pages of the YRB photo article or just the first page? (FYI, there's nudity but no genitalia) How large? 600 pixels wide?
- I think I'll scan the Go Big article at about 600 pixels wide (seems to be the maximum image size at WikiFur) --EarthFurst 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm writing up stubs for these right now, as EarthFurst showed me the magazines this evening and I took notes about the material. I would be concerned about having any image beyond the YRB cover; surely any such scans would be a violation of copyright. -- KDelany 07:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Today I looked wikipedia's fair use page, so I'm inclined to just scan the first page of each article (shunk-down scans). I assume fair use applies equally to the YRB cover (photo by Will Blockinger) and as it does to a page from the YRB article (photos by Ken Thurlbeck). Wikipedia's fair use article says "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
- 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- 2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
- 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
- Re rule #1: I believe WikiFur qualifies as nonprofit educational purposes. I'm not sure about rule #2. Re rule #3 and #4: I believe shrunk-down scans would be qualify as non-substancial reproduction and would not damage the market/value of the copyrighted work. --EarthFurst 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not very familiar with U.S.A. fair use provisions, but I would assume educational use is to do with being an actual institute of education (i.e. some sort of school, college, or university). Considering that neither magazine piece has even a full page of text, I'd consider even a page a very substantial portion. In addition, Go Big is a Canadian publication; wouldn't Canadian copyright provisions apply? -- KDelany 05:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess one question is, which one applies - fair use, since the server is in the USA, or fair dealing, since the copyright is in Canada? Moreover, are they likely to care if we show a page of their article? How about relevant quotes? The latter would seem to be best overall - it depends on if it can represent the character of the article. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not expert but here's my thoughts:
- 1. Wikia is a for-profit institute(note the ads along the edge) so any exceptions for educational or non-profit use don't apply.
- 2. Wikia may be considered just a service provider. If live in Canada and you upload something and a copyright holder in Canada objects, Wikia may not even be a party to the suit and the case would be entirely under Canadian law.
- 3. It sounds like we've already read about fair dealing; I believe the exceptions for review and criticism apply in this case. I would not take any more than what one would expect in the context of a review. --Rat 08:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)