File talk:Doom RPG Screenshot.jpg


Funny how this game managed to reach this point in the level with exactly the same health, ammo, and armor as one of the testers, and with the same monsters approaching as well.

Fraggle, I mean no disrespect to the immense amount of work it must have taken to put these Doom RPG articles together, but weren't you around during the drafting of the policy which says that we can't do this?  Even as a practical matter, it is one thing to flood the site with fair use material based on a game from the early 1990s, whose designers have actually told people that they would never take legal action; it is quite another to try the same thing with Doom 3 and Doom RPG, which are only a couple of years old and involve third-party publishers.    Ryan W 01:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I think I put this up with the intention of replacing it later on but obviously forgot about it. To be honest, promotional images like these probably come under fair use, which is probably the justification I used at the time. It isn't a very good screenshot anyway. I'll try to get Doom RPG running in an emulator again and take a replacement screenshot (like in Dr. Guerard). Fraggle 17:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, good to know I wasn't hallucinating anyway.  :>
To be honest, promotional images like these probably come under fair use   That question has often been raised on wikipedia, but equally often it is argued that the answer is "no", because they are not cleared for free-as-in-speech redistribution as the GFDL requires.  If a representative of the copyright holder gives us such permission, that's different, but given the current legal climate in the U.S., it is hard to imagine any publisher doing so when the material is still being sold.
Because this wiki is about a computer game, we are pretty much obligated to use a ton of map views and screen shots in order to be comprehensible, but that may keep the whole of the encyclopedia from ever being GFDL (though the text parts alone probably are).  According to people who study such things, images can only be used to illustrate specific characteristics of the article's subject which go beyond "simple identification", and even so, we almost never bother to write them up properly.  I always wonder how the people at central feel about that.    Ryan W 11:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
We're just pleased as punch that you even bother to label/license/attribute them correctly ^_^ (unlike some other wikis). --Splarka (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
* giggle *   You mean, after you fixed the bugs we put in MediaWiki:Licenses?  (Actually, I'm thinking about investigating the backlog of incorrectly tagged or untagged images, and I might still have one or two questions about MediaWiki:Licenses.  I'll post to your talk page.)    Ryan W 11:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Licensing problems as described above.  If everyone other than me thinks this is okay, then obviously I won't delete it, but please discuss below.

  • Delete.    Ryan W 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fraggle 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Janizdreg 04:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nuxius 04:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)