User:Shii/Image talk:Anime by nima.jpg

Copyright status

Could whoever wants to reclassify this please explain? This is the artist's work and he has released it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's a drawing of "a character from some Anime series" then it's fan art of that series. Discussions on the Commons have concluded that fan art cannot be licensed under GFDL or anything like that. Ashibaka tock 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You can also see point 6 of this famous article. Ashibaka tock 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Given your recent run-in with me, it might be more appropriate if someone else would deal with this instead of you. The artist drew this. It is his work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See derivative work. If it's "a character from some Anime", then the artist does not have all the rights to it, his work or no. In fact, to be strict about it, this image should be deleted as a copyvio. Perhaps this would be more obvious if instead of some poorly-identified character, it was, say, Superman. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It would have to be a pretty close copy. Do you have a link to what you're saying it's a copy of, so we can compare? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

IRC brigade

I'm not sure if you're actually allowed to make enemies on Wikipedia but per your request I asked for someone to help me out. Ashibaka tock 02:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You went on IRC to look for someone to help you with your attack, you mean. That simply serves to discredit IRC even more. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Ashibaka tock 03:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I do, when at all possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fan art typically constitutes a derivative work of the copyrighted characters. It thus cannot be licensed freely. See, e.g., Big Myth #6. 17 U.S.C. § 101:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Fan art is most certainly a "form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted"; the image in question is based on various copyrighted works featuring the character.

It absolutely does not have to be a "close copy", it just has to be based (even loosely) on the works, which it is. See, for instance, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.: the work in question was just based on Dr. Seuss's style, not anything resembling a close copy of any particular work, and it was found to be without question a derivative work; the only point of contention was whether it was valid fair use as parody (it wasn't). Even loose derivation is sufficient to constitute a derivative work. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't going to improve people's opinion of IRC. Simetrical, can you show me what it's alleged to be a copy of, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

http://gallery.minitokyo.net/view/93228/ Ashibaka tock 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The IRC "rallying of the troops" is quite tiresome; a bit too much mindless bad-mouthing and groupthink there for for my taste. Anyway, which of you are copyright lawyers? That way we can figure who is giving an informed opinion and who is just blowing smoke. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg and SlimVirgin, may I remind you both of Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Because you seem to have forgotten it entirely.

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will rarely help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.

Ashibaka tock 03:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Ashbaka is also a Wikipedia Review contributor (and one who is supportive of them), so we have the very worst of both worlds here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Ashibaka, you don't appear to have read my comments. Are you a copyright lawyer? Are you giving an informed opinion? Or is IRC a person who has now been "personally attacked"? And by the way, are you speaking "on behalf of the cabal" here? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, SlimVirgin, remember WP:NPA! Ashibaka tock 03:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure she remembers it, but it's obviously not relevant here. Please remember WP:POINT, though, which clearly is. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have already asked Ashibaka to stay out of this, because she has a grudge against me. If this isn't a personal attack, Ashibaka, please allow others to deal with it. If you continue to post about it, I'll assume it's trolling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)