Image talk:Anime by nima.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

Apparently it is, per Ashibaka's link below: [1]. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a derivative work. It cannot be GFDL. soufron

[edit] 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)

It seemed to me like a legitimate request for a second opinion. And I agree with Ashibaka; I've seen this image on your page before but was unfamiliar with the work it came from, and so would not have recognized it as a derivative work. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:56, 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)

Why? Simetrical's response is neutral and straightforward. I don't think it speaks ill of him or the medium. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

It doesn't have to be a copy of anything specific. It needs to be based on a general idea or style, or (in this case) a specific character. That's sufficient. I mentioned Dr. Seuss v. Penguin above; let's add Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., where someone who copied the general idea of a work was found to be infringing copyright.

The definition of "substantial similarity" in this circuit is "whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work." . . .

. . . it is now recognized that "the copying need not be of every detail so long as the copy is substantially similar to the copyrighted work." . . .

Defendants argue that their poster could not infringe plaintiff's copyright because only a small proportion of its design could possibly be considered similar. This argument is both factually and legally without merit. "[A] copyright infringement may occur by reason of a substantial similarity that involves only a small portion of each work." . . .

Moreover, it is generally recognized that ". . . since a very high degree of similarity is required in order to dispense with proof of access, it must logically follow that where proof of access is offered, the required degree of similarity may be somewhat less than would be necessary in the absence of such proof." . . .

No one makes fan art without having watched the show or whatever; proof of access is indisputable. If the work depicts a character from an anime show such that the character is recognizable as being the same, obviously the copying work must be somewhat similar—otherwise the copied character wouldn't be recognizable as the same. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:43, 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)

I condemn Wikipedia Review; I think it is a waste of time for a good contributor to go there to try to change their minds and I consider their continued tolerance of such harmful people as Brandt and Morrow unacceptable. However, on this point, which devoid of context has nothing to do with Wikipedia Review, I believe that Ashibaka is technically correct, and that accusing him of being on the attack is counterproductive. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:56, 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)

I'm not! I asked on IRC because SlimVirgin told me that she didn't want to talk to me! Ashibaka tock 03:32, 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)

How so? I am trying to remind everyone that it doesn't matter who's a member of what or who supports this or that-- we are trying to resolve an image dispute. Ashibaka tock 03:32, 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)

I have never said that I had a grudge against you!! Ashibaka tock 03:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Grudge or not, (s)he makes good points. Please assume good faith, and don't make personal attacks. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any good points, just non-expert opinions. Also, have you read WP:NPA? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. "

"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)"

Cough. -Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, copyright issues here are generally not resolved by copyright lawyers, as you should know. If you can find one, good, go ahead, but I've just quoted the US Code and case law and you've responded with nothing. And the idea that Wikipedians who happened to arrive here via IRC rather than, say, WP:RFC or WP:PUI are somehow an irritant or unjust is completely ridiculous. Contributors' actions outside Wikipedia are also completely irrelevant.

Are you willing to discuss the underlying copyright issue or will you continue to just call us names and accuse us of various not related to the copyright status of this image? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Which name did I call you? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, WP:RFC and WP:PUI are official Wikipedia pages, where every statement is publicly recorded for eternity. IRC is an unofficial channel, where a small group of Wikipedians gossip about the others, and (they believe secretly) gang up on them from time to time. Those would be critical differences. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You've insinuated that IRC users are liable to "mindless bad-mouthing and groupthink", and have hinted that because I don't have a degree in copyright law I'm "blowing smoke". That definitely treads on the borders of WP:CIVIL. But I would appreciate it if you would answer my points regarding the copyright status of the image. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see, so I've no longer called you names, or violated WP:NPA, instead I've just "treaded on the borders of WP:CIVIL". It would be nice if people could make a claim and stick to it, rather than continually changing them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

<coughs> Why must only one debator present credentials, Jayjg? SlimVirgin: if you feel Ashibaka has a grudge against you, is that not evidence you have a grudge against her? Why should a contributor not be involved in this discussion? - Amgine 03:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong claims require strong evidence. The uploader created the image themself. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You require credentials to make strong claims? Since when are wikimedians required to present evidence of proficiency before making a strong claim? Who gets to decide what is either a strong claim or strong evidence? Certainly not a partisan such as yourself. Finally, and again, why is SlimVirgin's Strong Claim not required to meet equal muster? - Amgine 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Dissmissive phrases do not carry an argument.

Well, we're not going to be able to find any reliable sources on whether this particular image is a copyvio or not, are we? So we need to have some sort of expertise instead. As for the "strong claim", the person who created this work, handpainted it, in fact, a work which is not identical to any other work, has released it for use, yet some here are still claiming that it is a copyright violation. That's a very strong claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not in the slightest a strong claim, as you would immediately agree that a carefully painted Mickey Mouse will be an infringement of Disney. You are making a strawman argument, and avoiding the question: Why do you get to decide it's a strong claim? Why are you not asking for equal credentials of the person stating the opposing view? - Amgine 04:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The creator specifically stated that he/she based it off an anime character. There's no question of that, and that's sufficient (as I have painstakingly outlined above) to make the work a derivative. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The former statement is true; the latter statement is what is in question. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am male and I don't have a grudge against SlimVirgin. (Although I find her behavior on this page alarming.) Ashibaka tock 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No more than yours. Your motive here is transparent. And disruptive. FeloniousMonk 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion recommended

In my opinion, this image is either a derivative of the original (as linked above), or falls just short of being considered derivative. The picture elements are identical to the original (aside from a mirror reflection); the only differences are in the color of the hair and of the dress, and in the background. The only mitigation is that it's manga/anime, which is so formulaic that all of it could be argued as derivative. Given that this image serves no encyclopedic purpose, I must recommend that it be deleted. While I am not a copyright attorney, I am rather more clueful about copyright than most others on Wikipedia, having actually taken the time to study it. If you don't like my opinion, take it to Brad Patrick and let him decide.

As to all the yammering above about IRC and enemies and what not: Enough. There is a legitimate issue here, and trying to divert that by discussing personalities is both unhelpful and uncivil. Stop it, now. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Simetrical, when the trolling and IRC posting about this has stopped, I'll be happy to discuss the image with you, but I'm not going to continue a discussion about it in this atmosphere. Ashibaka is out to cause trouble. It's the third or fourth time she's done it with me, and I won't participate in it. I suggest we leave this for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I brought this up on IRC because you told me that "it might be more appropriate if someone else would deal with this instead of you". I do not normally go on IRC and I have nothing against you as a person. Ashibaka tock 03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a bizarre place to bring it up. Why not on WP:RFC or WP:PUI? Especially because, as you know, IRC has a fetish about ensuring that the logs are never reproduced; the ideal place for ephemeral and secretive collusion. Has #Wikipedia suddenly become an official policy decision-making body? The new Arbitration Committee? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't! It's just where a lot of people happen to be online at the same time and I asked them to join in the discussion because SlimVirgin didn't want to talk to me. It's like any other chatroom except all the Wikipedians are there. Ashibaka tock 04:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka, is there any need for you to continue to post here? You've made your point. Perhaps you could now allow others to deal with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to post here because people are making personal attacks about me, viz., "Ashibaka is out to cause trouble." Ashibaka tock 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't have to post here. Doing so simply deepens the impression that you are, indeed, trying to cause trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that how it appears to you? I guess I will take your advice then. After all, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Ashibaka tock 04:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If this argument continues in this unproductive manner, both of you will be blocked for 24 hours. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, I'm certainly going to continue it, so you may as well go ahead and block. It would be particularly appropriate to block me (the c*** who couldn't get a dollar for a blowjob, or whatever the latest insult was) on the day Mistress Selina Kyle and Blu Aardvark are unblocked, so be my guest. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately for you, Ashibaka has shown the maturity to discontinue the argument (at least he has so indicated that he will withdraw); there is therefore no point in blocking either of you. I think you should step back for a bit, though; you seem to be doing a poor job of managing yourself at the moment, and a short break would seem appropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing fine managing myself; just wondering whether there's any point in continuing with this project. Some sort of symbiosis seems to have developed between IRC and Wikipedia Review, with Mistress Selina Kyle and Blu Aardvark both posting to IRC and having a bureaucrat unblock them, days after Snowspinner is reported to the police, private images of you are posted, someone tries to lose Kate her job, Tony's sexuality is discussed, and I am called a c*** for the 500th time, on a website they are both responsible for. Then an image on my user page by Zereshk is threatened with deletion (again!) by someone who posts both to IRC and Wikipedia Review, and who has previously supported Wikitruth and the LaRouchies; and then other IRC people turn up to help. LOL!! I can surely be forgiven for wondering whether this really still is a project to build an encyclopedia, or whether it has at last buckled under the weight of the lunatics and trolls. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Kelly has a singular notion about maturity it seems. What I've seen here is very one-sided bullying and intimidation of SV over a petty, contrived issue, and it's going to stop, Kelly included. FeloniousMonk 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General request

Please, all of you, stop focusing on each other instead of the issue. Also, I think it is a fair assumption that everyone here has read and remembers every relevant policy page; it may be more helpful to isolate statements you disagree with and why rather than point out policies. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone should start by approaching the artist and uploader (someone other than Ashibaka, please), rather than trying to secondguess him. What someone above is claiming to be the original might not be. It's inappropriate to take an anonymous person on some other website at face value, and not even to ask one of our own contributors, who uploaded it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted for now.

I've temporarily deleted the file until Brad Patrick responds. Copyright violations are nothing to be taken lightly, and if this is one, we need to be extremely careful. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Soufron (WMF legal officer) has commented above, incidentally. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone tell me what prompted the sudden interest in this page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations. I don't like them. That's why. Ral315 (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

An innocuous, non-commerical image, that just may be a copyvio, used on one user's page. The response is out of proportion to the issue. Clearly there's something more going on here, and it's transparent what it is. FeloniousMonk 05:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A little too opaque for me, alas. Perhaps we use a different kind of transparency in Godzone; to better protect us from the stronger rays of the Sun, perhaps? Who can say? Please don't just hint at these things: if you want to say something nasty, either say it, or keep your mouth shut. This sort of vagueness serves nobody. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Innocuousness is irrelevant to copyvios. Non-commerciality is irrelevant, because commercial providers must be able to rehost our content (including userpages). The response to this copyvio was to try recategorizing it, then to discuss the issue on the talk page, and mention it on IRC.

I personally strongly believe in copyright law, and strongly believe that Wikipedia needs to be free. I had little to nothing against SlimVirgin prior to this incident; as a review of my edit history will show, I routinely list even "innocuous" copyvios for deletion, and this is no exception. I can't speak for Ashibaka, but SlimVirgin's repeated accusations of grudges with no evidence presented to back them up, combined with disparaging remarks directed at all IRC users, statements that Ashibaka was "attack"ing her, insinuations regarding Ashibaka's contributions to other sites, and accusations of trolling, when Ashibaka has not made a single statement in any way derogatory toward SlimVirgin or anyone else except insofar as stating that things like "If you continue to post about it, I'll assume it's trolling" violate Wikipedia guidelines . . . all that makes me consider it very unlikely that Ashibaka is the one in the wrong.

Regardless, motives are quite simply irrelevant. Ashibaka, for whatever reason, brought up a legitimate copyright question. Even if he did that just to cause trouble for SlimVirgin, given that the question was not groundless, the project is benefited by it. Far better to bring up legitimate issues out of spite than to act illegitimately when wronged. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The request was made on IRC, as noted above; it tends to generate interest. (And to take on a life of its own, beyond whatever the original dispute may have been.) As to why Soufron is interested, Jay stated above that no one here was a copyright lawyer. Soufron is, in addition to being a WMF legal officer; if anyone can state a position here that all sides would be expected to accept (and for the love of Pete to please bring this argument to an end as soon as possible), he can, and so I asked his opinion.

As I attempted not to bias his comment (and, for the record, anyone may repost anything I say in a public IRC channel without asking my permission), here is the entire text of what I said to him in #wikimedia: "Soufron, how would you like to step in on a nasty copyright dispute? :-P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Anime_by_nima.jpg (background: some of the people arguing are fighting with each other over other things.)" Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)