Template talk:Pokeimage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

• Image:Bulbasaur.png
• Image:Ivysaur.png
• Image:Venusaur.png
• Image:Charmander.png
• etc.
  • Many of these falsely are listed as being in the public domain. Others have no copyright information at all. All of them are official Pokémon images.Guanaco 22:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that if there is a consensus that these should go, a very large number of Pokémon images will be deleted. Guanaco 02:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
• Image:Odamaki.png - ref'd as being from Pokémon.com's "Ash and Friends" Wallpaper. See related © notice on Terms of Use: No material from this or any other Internet site owned, operated, licensed, or controlled by us or our affiliates may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way. Presumably we have dozens of such. –Hajor 02:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  • See Image talk:Odamaki.png. Uploader deleted copyvio notice and changed source info. on the Image: page; on Image Talk he explains that the image was created from the original © pic on pokemon.com for his fan site [1] and is therefore the property of that site [2]. There's clearly a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law at play; could someone please clear up whether it's on his part or mine? If mine, profuse apologies; if his, then there are a large number of "Pokémon Tours" pics in the same situation. Can they all be brought in under fair use? –Hajor 17:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Using derivative works of the Pokemon.com pics isn't allowed under copyright law. We can't use those images any more than we could use [3] if we rotated and cropped it and superimposed a little Image:Wiki.png.
  • There are two categories of these Pokemon.com pictures, then: modified (eg, Image:Odamaki.png) and unmodified (Image:Ekans.png, below). From what you say, the modified pics cannot be legitimate; but can the unmodified ones be brought in under Fair Use? (Or are there simply too many of them?) Should we be drawing up a (long) list or two? –Hajor 21:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I am the poster of that image. I may not be a lawyer, but I do know that editing the image the way I do is long, difficult, and tedious work for which at least some acknowledgement should be given. Maybe the whole copyright doesn't pass to me, and I'll be sure to change that on my website, but I do have to get some credit for that. That is what I mean when I say the edited image "belongs" to me.
    --Fern 03:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The images in question are all either derivative works or copies of the originals from Pokemon.com or a similar source. Creating the derivative works may be long, difficult, and tedious work, but that does not take away from Pokémon/Gamefreak/whoever's legal monopoly on the creation of derivative works. Since it's definitely violating the copyright for us to use images that are derivative works, those need to be deleted. We may or may not be able to claim fair use. Image:Odamaki.png is modified, but, in my opinion, it hasn't had any creative modifications. I agree with Hajor; we need to make a list of all the Pokémon images. Guanaco 16:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • And what, if I may ask, could constitute a creative modification, adding a curly mustache to the professor? Doing that would mean that it no longer is him, but a different character. Also, What is to be done for images in those articles then, fan art? And who is going to go replacing all the copyrighted pictures for non-copyrighted pictures? I'm sure nobody wants to do that since there's probably more than 300 of them (The actual Pokémon, the characters, and the related articles such as Pokémon Trainer)
    --Fern 08:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    PS; does what Jamesday said below about images about Pokémon count? Does this mean they don't need to be replaced nor deleted? Or some yes and some no? or should the source information be all that is changed?
    PPS:Would that mean that for the image to be fair use, it would need to be unmodified, and should have a link to the company's website?
    PPPS: This discussion is becoming quite long. maybe it should be moved to another page, together with the Ekans image discussion? This PPPS is merely a suggestion, though.
  • I just remembered something, well, two things actually. The first is that I had set the wallpaper as a wallpaper long ago, and didn't think about actually using the image untill I saw this which had a very similar picture of the professor. Now I don't know if this page is official or not, since I can't even read the language, but if it isn't would we be able to use this with permission from the site's webmaster? The second thing was that not all the pictures that say "From Pokémon Tours" were uploaded by me, for example the images of Professor Oak.
    --Fern 10:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Image:Ekans.png - same as Odamaki. Copied unmodified from pokemon.com. –Hajor 02:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
• All of these - both original and modified - appear to be straightforward fair use in the context of articles about the Pokemon characters. Do take care with the modified ones to describe them so that the description is fair use for the original and GFDL for only your additions, with the net result being a fair use image. Images of anything in articles about the thing are almost always going to be fair use. A license can't restrict fair use, so that isn't a factor. Jamesday 13:21, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Your comment has really got me thinking, Jamesday, as you might see in my post scripts above. Does this mean then that a company's logo could be used in an article about that company without requiring the company's written permission? I know that the talk about logos has been going on for long and its not my intention to mix it up with this but this just got me thinking (which is saying a lot since I was half asleep) :-)
    Would this mean then that images such as pictures of Pokémon can be used, but the company has to be credited for it? As in maybe putting in the images source "From Website Omega but character created by Company Alpha."
    --Fern 08:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, logos in article about the company, the logo itself or the creator or history of the logo will be fine for fair use. Jamesday 07:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Fair use. Mornington Crescent. Game Over.
    I'm surprised that the "substantiality" provision of fair use can be stretched to embrace the use of 300+ pics, including modified ones, to illustrate one cartoon/game/product, but Jamesday is a closer follower of the law than I am. At the very least, the image description pages must be modified to indicate the original source of the picture, identify the copyright holder, and state that it's being used under the fair use doctrine.
    Of all that's been said, I was most intrigued by Fern's suggestion of fan art: would derivative GFDL fan art based on copyrighted characters be more or less free than fair-using the originals? Or is that plain Just Not Worth It? –Hajor 16:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe each article is considered a separate document, so we are really only using 1-3 images to illustrate each article. The total number of images does not matter. It seems that it's similar to a free web-hosting site storing and displaying 300 images on its server, while each of the 100 Pokémon fan sites only uses three. Guanaco 16:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • See Ty, Inc., vs. Publications International, Ltd.. That's an example of having everything yet still being fine. Our purpose here - to provide comprehensive coverage of the subjects of interest - effectively requires some form of image of visual works. Hence, those uses are almost always going to be fair, because we really don't have a choice if we're going to do a competent job. Jamesday 07:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Something to consider, though: I don't believe fair use still applies for commercial purposes, and if Wikipedia at any point in time begins to use advertising on its pages, then all these images currently claimed under fair use will have to be removed.
    • Fan art is interesting. The original image used as the bass for the fan art (if there was one) would make the fan art itself fair use of the original work. Whether hte fan art itlf is fair use here would depend on an analysis of the reason for including the fan art. If it's an article about the fan art, or coverage of fan art resulting from the original work, that seems fine - discussion of works for comment, review and criticism - which all of our articles tend to do - is fine. Comment and review includes film reviews, book summaries and such, which is where our factual articles fit. Jamesday 07:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Here's something interesting and fresh: Someone just put a template on image:Meowth.png! Is this template to be used on all the "Poké-images" (as the template calls itself) or is it just something created by an individual not relevant to this discussion?
    --Fern 21:20, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I'm currently updating and creating some articles for separate pokémon (Gardevoir is done, Kirlia is being edited as I write) - I've used images from Pokémon Forever, which the webmaster has in turn taken from official pokémon artwork by Ken Sugimori. Jamesday's description of fair use would seem to apply in this case. I've appended the pokeimages template to the image description files. CNash 20:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 00:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

In light of the arguements raised at the TFD discussion, i've created new categories and tags in which to place pokemon related images. You can find them listed at WP:PCP#Templates and other discussion at WT:PCP#Image categories. I'd like to label this template as deprecated, or perhaps merely suggest the other templates that might be a better fit. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)