User talk:Tanamoril

community license

As seemingly the copyright master, I have a question on the subject. From what I see we only seem to entertaining CC3 and ~PD licenses. Any chance for some sort of community license scheme (for example). I would much prefer to use dedicated DF fan art than vague vintage paintings. Under such scheme, we can ask the bigger artist (like Kruggsmash to give limited permission for use of their DF related art works on the DF wikis with attribution, instead of releasing it with world wide license. --Jan (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There's already a bit of talk about that on Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Copyrights, but that page is already so cluttered that I can't blame you for not seeing that.

Paizo community license allows the usage of images whose copyright belongs to Paizo to be used in community projects (under the restrictions stated in the license). Since neither Dwarf Fortress community as a whole nor DF wiki are copyright holders of any art, we can't really make our own version of Paizo's community license.

However, if I understood you correctly, you are proposing that we create a license which says "usable on DF wiki alone with attribution", for example. Many files on this wiki are already under such "license".

The problem with such license is that DF wiki in general available under GFDL & MIT. I assume that such open licenses are used so that contents of this wiki could be distributed almost as freely as possible. If we have files which only DF wiki is allowed to use, someone who wants to, say, make a DF tutorial by copying some pages of this wiki would have to remove the images from their copy. Or if someone wants to translate wiki pages to another language and host them on their website, they'd need to get rid of the images with "DF wiki only" license. This line of reasoning is why Wikipedia doesn't allow images with "Wikipedia only" license.

So, in a nut shell, such license is in no way impossible, but it may be incompatible with the values which this wiki is based on. However, as said above, images with such license already exist on this wiki, so the problem is already upon us.

I'm hoping to hold a wider community discussion on this issue later. Tanamoril (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize it already exist and I don't consider it a problem. I think your goal is laudable but I am more concerned with what we can achieve here on the wiki, rather than some vague idea if what someone might be able to achieve elsewhere sometime. Also pragmatically many people might would be more likely to agree to such a license that gives them attribution\exposure than some global license (which future implication they might not understand).

Otherwise, the Paizo community license was indeed just an example of what is possible, the community can decide on the final print for whatever suits our needs. Good luck with getting the wider community discussion going. --Jan (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Cluttered, you say. I added a TOC sometime last year, and I think the 'bit of talk' you're referencing is here, right? Just to be sure. Silverwing235 (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the TOC you added does help somewhat, thank you. However, the discussion under "Images and copyright infringement" is quite long, and I believe only these three messages by you and Voliol are relevant to Jan's question. Tanamoril (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)