File talk:UAC.PNG



No fanfic works.  (This isn't specifically mentioned in the notability policy, but I think it's generally understood.  Should we write it in?)

  • Delete.    Ryan W 06:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why this image couldn't be used to clearly demonstrate/display the UAC logo (since we can't use raw textures for that purpose anyway). Also, do you think this should be deleted too, for example? -- Janizdreg 08:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Counterexample: we used a screen shot for the Tei Tenga graphic, which is even smaller.  In the UAC case, we could include a Doom 3 screen shot also, for higher resolution.
I like Fredrik's drawing, but yes, strictly speaking we should replace it.  Apart from the copyright problem, IMHO we should be especially vigilant about speculative edits in articles like that (they have only a tiny "canon" to work from, so it can easily get out of control).
Clarification: actually there is precedent for documenting fanfic (Hissy, Encyclopedia Daemonica), but those things were already notable within the community, not created for this site.    Ryan W 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't really agree with the statement that "fanpics" shouldn't be used to illustrate articles, because it's like saying a dictionary or an encyclopedia is doing something wrong by hiring an artist to provide original drawings to illustrate the work. Besides, it's little different from submitting a photograph the contributor took, or making an original diagram to illustrate a process. Along with "public domain" works, original ones donated by authors are the main way to avoid using (other) copyrighted material that may not be convenient here. In fact, if such a picture can reasonably be used for the purpose at hand, using a screen shot of the game abuses "fair use" excuses because a more free alternative is available. I think that what matters is whether the illustration is truly illustrating and representing the UAC, and whether it may be infringing copyrights. I'd say the blue logo over black is illustrative, although the UAC in red isn't. Regardless, using an offshoot of the logo, a very specific design, could be interpreted as derivative of the original, and that's why I'm for the deletion. Actually, the Hissy-based logo is likewise apparently derivative (ironically, so is id's Cacodemon sprite). You know what I would do about the wiki logo? I'd ask id for permission for use in such a context, and I'd remove it if they were to discourage its use or demand unsuitable use restrictions. Who is like God? 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting — so you've turned my argument on its head.  If I understand you, you're saying that Doomguy_Fredrik.png is more permissible than this image, because the Doomguy article has more original research, and because the drawing itself can reasonably be interpreted as a composite of the canon/fanon.  For this image, on the other hand, I am assuming until told otherwise that it is a simple end-run around the letter of the policy.  For example, you wouldn't create a meticulous hand-drawn reproduction of a Calvin & Hobbes strip, and then upload it to wikipedia "because it isn't the original copyrighted work".
Asking id for an explicit statement would be unprecedented AFAIK, a stunning triumph of common sense over bureaucracy (if it worked); it would also be tickling a sleeping dragon.  Your own standing in the Doom community far outstrips mine, so I would applaud you for starting such a project, but I would expect you to be reprimanded at every turn.  AFAICT, discussion of derivative works is actively suppressed on most sites, including Doomworld.    Ryan W 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as Fredrik's marine is concerned, the main thing is that, as drawn, it can be considered generic (a fighting man in military gear), whereas the cacodemon is something that appears only in Doom (or also in Jeff Easley's artwork, but that doesn't help the case). As for talking to id about the image, I'd do it only with some form of (strong) consensus here. Who is like God? 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
as drawn, it can be considered generic (a fighting man in military gear)   After seeing the cutscenes in Doom 3, I don't think I could argue that with a straight face.  The resemblance is unmistakable, especially given that this site is about Doom.    Ryan W 02:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The similarities are the green color of the armor (although in Doom 3 it's textured with a metallic sheen with tubes and gray sections unlike in the fan art) and the brown hair color. The armor plate looks different (horizontal sections in Doom 3, shoulder plate extensions that go on top of the chest in the fan art), the Doom 3 marine uses a futuristic weapon and armored boots, while Fred's looks more muscular and has a wider looking head and plainer boots. Compare this case to any where something is indisputably based on a unique design (cacodemon, UAC logo). You can't copyright something generic or mundane that has been done to death. Maybe if the weapon, boots, and armor plates had looked the same one could have argued artistic derivation. A mouse with shoes and pants does not Mickey Mouse make.Who is like God? 03:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you about the cacodemon, but IMHO there are many intermediate situations between that and "a mouse with shoes and pants".  Do a google image search for "Samus Aran" and you will see thousands and thousands of fan art pieces with analogous tweaks from the original; would all of those be acceptable on the Metroid Wiki?  If not, how do they figure out how much alteration is enough (without a team of attorneys to advise them)?  The analogy to a dictionary hiring an artist is not really valid because that artist's work would depict generic, everyday concepts, not tableaux associated with a licensed brand.
The copyright issue may actually be largely irrelevant given Wikia's general attitude toward images, but for the purposes of being "encyclopedic", I still think that a screenshot gallery would ideally have more standing than a piece of fan art (even a highly competent one, like Fredrik's), unless the latter is already notable within the community.    Ryan W 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
An analogy with Fredrik's Doomguy would be a general plot description of Doom's story as it appears in the wiki. If that drawing is perhaps infringing copyrights, the retelling the story is certainly doing so. A screen shot is like pasting the story itself, or part of it. As for Samus Aran, it would depend on the particular piece, and whether it were evidently similar to artwork from the games (although in that case the name "Samus Aran" is a defined character of the game, while the term "Doomguy" was coined by the fan community to pinpoint a fill-in playing character). But indeed, another rendition of the Doomguy could well be evidently derivative if it were to steal specific design features from the game's artwork that could not be justified in a general sense.
Ryan W said [t]he analogy to a dictionary hiring an artist is not really valid because that artist's work would depict generic, everyday concepts, not tableaux associated with a licensed brand. Fred's pic could be used in many other contexts where it would not be evident that it was depicting the character from the Doom games. It's clear that it's the Doomguy because it's in the Doomguy article and the caption says so, otherwise, I could put it in an Aliens wiki or in the docs for some SciFi RPG and believably say it's a custom rendition of a "space marine".
I think what Fredrik did by donating a suitable pic and even avioding "fair use" should be encouraged, regardless of what others commonly do (often unnecessarily, and thus abusively, calling on "fair use"). Who is like God? 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That makes a lot more sense, about the non-canon name and the Aliens wiki/RPG docs.  One little thing though:  If that drawing is perhaps infringing copyrights, the retelling the story is certainly doing so.   Yes indeed: on Wikipedia, some people have been calling for the removal of all detailed plot summaries of television episodes.  No doubt a video game originally released in 1993 will attract less attention, but still.    Ryan W 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)