Being familiar with the copyright nazis (and I say that in the “grammar nazi” sense) at DeviantArt and other places which host furry art, I’m wondering about WikiFur and what I consider to be the possible, future conflict of interest with Furry artists.
I mean, is it possible? There’s already a substantial amount of media in WikiFur’s commons, that goes without saying. But since imagery is the one thing that the Furry “fandom” piggybacks on for its very existence (I mean, without the art, what do you have? Fursuits?), there seems to be a conflict of interests between the concept of creative commons and commodity art (including the kind that is sold at conventions).
Or is it just me?
BTW, this is the first post that I’ve made with the word “furry” in the title in a long while. Feels wierd….
fursuits make me cry.
What, like clowns?
Even though some of the ones I’ve seen while browsing the web do make me twitch a bit (y’know, the ones with the unnecessary body *parts*).
No,no. Clowns make me laugh. I *like* clowns. But furusits make me cry. ESPECIALLY the ones with…”parts”.
Have you actually seen any of these? I was at Anthrocon and there was a surprising lack of such.
Oh, the things I have seen.
Is that a yes or a no?
We get a lot of people saying “oh, you know the things that go on”, and then it actually turns out they only heard of them from someone who was doing exactly the same thing as they were. 🙂
That was a yes. WAY up close. No, I won’t go into detail. Some things can’t be UN-seen.
LOL FURRIES
LOL FURRIES
LOL FURRIES
LOL FURRIES
LOL FURRIES
LOL FURRIES
LOL FURRIES
WikiFur and copyrighted works
We tend to be reasonable careful about such things. Our major “out” is that it is accepted by artists that commissioned pictures will be posted on web pages about the subject, an extension of “fair use”. Unsurprisingly, many articles about people have an image of their fursona. We try to tag such images so they are not used in ways that are inappropriate, and are always open to dialog from copyright holders who believe their work is being used inappropriately.
To date, I believe there has been one (1) instance of copyright violation that has been brought to our attention. It was confirmed and the image was deleted within the hour. I have emailed people about the use of their images when I was unsure of their provenance, and they’ve always said it’s fine so far. So, no, it’s not been a problem to date. We have far more people complaining about being written about without their explicit permission.
Re: WikiFur and copyrighted works
Ahh, well that’s good.
And the thing about being written about, I could understand that. I think I’ve seen at least one bio article on there that’s locked from editing (namely, that was Kaijima’s. Poor guy’s somewhat dropped out from the web since his site was featured on Portal of Evil’s forums).
So yeah, I could understand the issue there.
Re: WikiFur and copyrighted works
I talk to Kai every day. To be honest, that seems like free advertising to me, but I know some people feel differently about such things. Our view is that it’s better to have an article that has reasonable levels of information than no article at all, so that’s why we allow the protected articles.
Re: WikiFur and copyrighted works
BTW, I’m Toussaint.
And you’ve been added.
So to quote Toph: “What’s Up?”
Re: WikiFur and copyrighted works
Whoops:
Re: WikiFur and copyrighted works
Seriously, WTF’s with this HTML?
Re: WikiFur and copyrighted works
You need to have the http:// at the start of the first link, otherwise it thinks it’s a subpage of livejournal.com instead. Amazing but true. 🙂
Re: WikiFur and copyrighted works
Alright, one mo’ ‘gin: Toussaint