Template talk:Permission-wikifurries

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Hmm, this keeps getting misused. It was originally intended for images of actual people as there are better suited templates. Any suggestions on how to prevent this misuse? -- JaeSharp 06:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

{{PermissionUserSpace}}? As long as you keep it on your user space and you're not infringing someone else's copyright, it's okay. But if you want to use it in article space, a Permission-only image isn't good enough. --Rat 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, no.. I mean people keep using for drawings of their fursonas and such... I originally meant it for actual photographs of people (see GreenReaper's photo)... but I'd rather deprecate it now to prevent further confusion. -- JaeSharp 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, what I mean is, a permission-for-WikiFur-only image should never be good enough. The only possible exception I can possibly see is if they want to use something solely on their user page. In either case I don't make a distinction between a drawing or photograph.--Rat 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. For wikifur to be free, we must free every part of wikifur. -- JaeSharp 04:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so how should we do this?
  1. Remove "Limited License" and "Permission-wikifurries" from the license selector
  2. Change the templates to say that they are deprecated and should no longer be used
  3. Begin notifying uploaders of such images, trying not to put out so many notifications at one time that we can't deal with them.
  4. After reasonable grace period delete remaining unfree pictures. --Rat 04:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hold on a minute . . . just why is it not OK for people to say "I'm fine with displaying this artwork on WikiFur, but I would rather you not distribute it further"? WikiFur's objective was never primarily to be free (libre), it was to be useful. A half loaf is far better than no loaf at all, and that's what we will get if we start demanding that people only upload images under free licenses. Probably the majority of character images on WikiFur were uploaded by non-artists who had them commissioned and simply cannot give that permission, and are never going to go to the trouble of doing so either. If we force them to take those down, we lose. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Character drawings for identification and commentary on the character(the {{fursona}} tag) not covered by this plan. Any "permission-only" pictures that can be justified by fair use, will get a new template and kept. --Rat 05:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And if it is not? If they say "I think this images is appropriate for WikiFur, and I'm glad to help by uploading it, I just don't want it to be anywhere else"? Disregarding the inadequacies of this particular implementation, what is the problem with having people uploading relevant images that are just licensed to us? Some people like WikiFur, and they want to help, but they don't trust everyone with their work. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And if it is not, well first of all, the amount of images involved should be very small, those currently under a permission-only license, that are not justifiable under fair use, and whose creators didn't relicense it. Second, we're not robots, if the image is valuable and irreplaceable enough, we keep it. Otherwise we delete it and someone else uploads an image under a free license. If they say they don't want it to be used anywhere else, legally we can't do anything to enforce it, so why give them a false hope.
The problem with permission-only is that there is distinction between the goal and the method. The goal is a work that explains the furry fandom and things of interest to the furry fandom. The method is a wiki called WikiFur. The goal remains the same whether web hosts go down or technology changes. The method changes. The goal remains the same whether it's printed out, burned onto a CD, or beamed into people's brains.--Rat 05:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Legally no image gallery in the world can guarantee that images will not be copied, either, but they don't require their users to agree that they should be. There's a big difference between saying "we won't help you enforce your copyright" and "we won't notify people of your wishes", or "we won't take your work unless you agree to let people copy it freely". And people don't just upload an image under a free license if a non-free one is removed - that argument has been used on Wikipedia, and it doesn't work there either. The article remains without an image until someone does, and that can be a long time indeed.
As for methods and goals, for all of WikiFur's grand objectives, I'm pretty sure some of our users intend are thinking of the method when they upload, not the goal. They upload to this site, usually with a view to illustrating individual articles, and they don't expect it to appear elsewhere. What if people disagree with future methods, or change their minds? Are we going to tell them "too bad, you signed your rights away when you uploaded five years ago."? If people want to say "you can host this online, but you can't give it to other people, and you can't print it out" then that should be an option. There should also be prominently-placed options to allow people to give more permissions to us, if they wish. These could be expressed in "goal" terms if desired, though I worry that it'll get awfully vague - who decides what happens if some site succeeds WikiFur, for example? --GreenReaper(talk) 06:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I think this best states the position that I do not agree with - that making a completely "free" (libre) content database is a higher goal than making a "higher quality" one that has permission to use certain images. That route leads to inevitable conflict between those who seek idealogical purity and those who just want to make the best article that they can. As I see it, our objective is the latter. If that makes reuse harder, so be it. So far I've seen very little interest in people actually reusing WikiFur, and if anyone seriously intends it in the future, I suspect excluding or obtaining permission for the additional use of non-free images will be one of the least of their problems. I think most will be willing to give us quite a lot, but they may baulk at extending those rights to others. For example, they might well allow us to print an image with their article, perhaps even sell it as part of a book, but would not want to allow other people to reuse the image commercially. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, however, in order to make the highest quality encyclopedia (in all forms) we need to ensure that we can reuse the licensed images in a new media so that we have the freedom to continue spreading the knowledge in whatever new form wikifur comes up with or if wikifur becomes no more. -- JaeSharp 00:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think this could be doable with a license something like "you agree to grant designated agents of wikifur non-exclusive rights to transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submitted media within the stated purpose and spirit of WikiFur." (similar to FurAffinity's submission agreement) but in any case we must simplify the licensing choices-- JaeSharp 05:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with GreenReaper on this one, and my feeling is that trying to restrict to freely-licensed images would result in a heck of a lot fewer images being offered for use here. It is a different thing to check out a specific project (a website called WikiFur, with defined policies and ways of doing things) and be willing to have one's work used in it, and quite another to sign away one's work to be used as seen fit by unspecified people in unspecified ways. -- Sine 05:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm concerned as well and I agree with you in full. But we need to be more explicit in how we can use images licensed to us. We need the freedom to use images for wikifur purposes, current or future. -- JaeSharp 06:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)