Replying belatedly to say: thank you for this comment (which I meant to answer a few days ago, and RL got in the way), and it is one of the things we'll be discussing at this week's wikicomm meeting.
Your point about "every archive in the fannish civilized world" is a fair one. But Fanlore isn't meant to be an archive, and I think we would say that showing fanart on the wiki is not equivalent to ripping off someone's story and redistributing it without permission.
For a specific example (I think speaking in generalities isn't actually helping us in this conversation), take the page on ratcreature and her work: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Ratcreature
The page is there because fans thought RC's work was interesting enough to document. When RC objected to the use of high-res images to illustrate her work, the images were changed to low-res ones alongside pointers to RC's website so that viewers would see her work in the way she intended.
To my mind, this is the equivalent of quoting from someone's publicly-posted story, which is within fannish norms. (Granted, not everyone likes having their stories discussed or reviewed, but at least in the corner of fandom with which I'm familiar, it's an accepted given that people do quote from and discuss stories.) Does that analogy work for you, or are we still talking at cross-purposes?
no subject
Your point about "every archive in the fannish civilized world" is a fair one. But Fanlore isn't meant to be an archive, and I think we would say that showing fanart on the wiki is not equivalent to ripping off someone's story and redistributing it without permission.
For a specific example (I think speaking in generalities isn't actually helping us in this conversation), take the page on
The page is there because fans thought RC's work was interesting enough to document. When RC objected to the use of high-res images to illustrate her work, the images were changed to low-res ones alongside pointers to RC's website so that viewers would see her work in the way she intended.
To my mind, this is the equivalent of quoting from someone's publicly-posted story, which is within fannish norms. (Granted, not everyone likes having their stories discussed or reviewed, but at least in the corner of fandom with which I'm familiar, it's an accepted given that people do quote from and discuss stories.) Does that analogy work for you, or are we still talking at cross-purposes?