I have a question about licenses in the wiki

[ratcreature]

On the Fanlore:Copyright page it says "Fanlore's position is that the reproduction of zine covers and other fannish artwork falls constitutes a fair use under U.S. copyright law. Artists should be credited (in accordance with any privacy concerns)." -- so I gather if someone else say uploaded a copy of some fanart I posted online to illustrate something, Fanlore doesn't claim the uploaded artwork is theirs even though it is in the Wiki, and others couldn't take it under the "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial license" that the wiki content is released under, the wiki just uses it.

But if I uploaded a copy of my own art to illustrate something (let's say it was even completely original, to not complicate it with the fanart aspect, like say I wanted to illustrate the "drawble" article, I could pick one that doesn't show characters I don't own), that would count as my original work, and be like text I contribute to the wiki, right? So my art, because I uploaded it myself as my original work, would then be automatically released to everyone under the wiki's CC license. Did I understand that right?

Comments

[anatsuno]

That's exactly how I understand it, yes.

[ratcreature]

I won't be doing that then.

I think there should be a note with the file upload dialog like there is when you submit text to articles, that makes this really clear. I mean, that if you use your own work rather than uploading images belonging to someone else, that then you release them under a CC license, not merely the fair use thing.

[anatsuno]

I said that's how I understand it, not that I'm right. But you make good points about clarifying it, yeah.

and another thing: that way I understand it is actually that you're releasing it under CC with Fanlore /only/ if what you're uploading is original material, not as in 'not a fanwork' but as in: never published anywhere else previously. What I mean is that I assume that if you're uploading something to Fanlore that's been published somewhere else before, it's as though you're quoting a previously released work, and it becomes similiar to the fair use case of the fanzine covers. At least that's how I see it.

Like I said, I might be wrong. I'll point the committee to this thread and see what they say?

[ratcreature]

Yeah, that would be good. It's not good to be confused about the terms you submit content under, and imo it makes sense that all submission forms the license apply to should have the same notes bringing it to attention, whether text or media. I mean, it's a natural impulse to use the own stuff if it fits somewhere, but it is not necessarily intuitive that it might mean different things for the licenses if you upload images you fully own than images that you don't own, and that you may give more rights away than just being okay with the wiki using your image or something like that.

ETA: also the difference you mention wrt never published things vs uploading things you published elsewhere before had never occurred to me as possibility.

[melina]

I added a clarification re original images to the Fanlore:Copyright page, which is where the other information re copyright is posted.

Edited, to avoid pigheadedness :) I'll look into having the upload page edited (can't do it as easily as other pages) to add a link to the copyright page, so instead of trying to include all the information there (which I honestly think is overload), it's a link instead, readily available to anyone with questions. Would that satisfy your concern?

[ratcreature]

I never suggested to put all the copyright details on the file upload page. I just think it should mention it, just like when you add text for the wiki you have the notice there,but a link with a sentence or something like that should be fine.

[melina]

It's been added. Thanks for your input.

[melina]

Yes, I think that's basically correct. We don't really anticipate that a lot of original, never-previously-published "artwork" is going to be uploaded to Fanlore. And of course a CC license is totally non-exclusive, so it doesn't prevent the "artist" from uploading the work anywhere else. Others could use it only non-commercially according to the CC license.

[ratcreature]

Well, I can see the point if it makes really a difference to the license whether you published the artwork somewhere else (like in your LJ) before, obviously most that would be included would have been published in some fannish medium before. But IMO the impulse to use your own art to illustrate something is about as likely as it is for fic writers to mention their own fic when it fits an article, only with art you have then a copy of it in the wiki, because it's not like you'd upload the right hand corner of your picture like you would quote a fic or a meta essay.

I mean, if I was editing say the article about "crack" as a genre and notice that it doesn't have any pictures, and thought maybe having an image in that article would be niche, uploading my SGA/Watership Down fusion with them as rabbits would fit there, and okay maybe it would be tacky mention your own stuff and people would rather look for the most "famous" example for an image, but it is not that far fetched that an artist might put their art in an article sometimes.

And if that was then available under a CC license, that would make a difference. Of course it's non-commercial and non-exclusive and so on, but I intentionally do not post my art under a CC license.

[(Anonymous)]

I am not a copyright lawyer, but I don't see how the creator of the work would necessarily be treated any differently when it came to uploading previously-published works. There are really 3 cases under consideration here:

1) Person A uploads PublishedImage created by Person B that constitutes Fair Use.
2) Person B uploads PublishedImage created by Person B that constitutes Fair Use.
3) Person B uploads unpublished artwork created by Person B - constitutes original work that presumably would fall under the CC license.

I think this is actually a really tricky issue - it's the reason tha Wikipedia eventually disallowed all fair-use claims and said everything had to be either original or CC.