That one, I'm not so convinced. It's a red plus sign, but it could be used in an animation to indicate an increasing stat. As it is, it's not really used in a context that could be directly associated with the red cross. It's also tiny, and the proportions are clearly different.
There are other concerns with allowing particular file formats.
Drupal uses a PHP library called (I believe) GD to do most of its image manipulation. GD is a very capable library, although it tends to expect fairly standard formats. The upside of using GD is that preview image generation is very easy for me to maintain, and it doesn't involve spending dozens of hours (that I don't have) poking around in code writing custom image conversion functionality for esoteric formats. Secondly, even if I did write that custom code, it would take away my ability to easily manage image preview formats from within Drupal's GUI, and make it just a general pain in the butt all around.
I don't have a problem with submissions in this format, but what I need in that case is for you to put them in an archive file (zip, 7z, etc) that OGA accepts, which will require that you also upload a preview image in a standard format.
Edit: One other thing I need to consider is general site usability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that XPM is a particularly common format. It's quite likely that it won't open in common image editing programs (perhaps GIMP will open them, but I doubt a lot of Windows and Mac based applications will). This is the first time I've ever seen someone request that people be able to submit XPMs. Unless there's more demand, I'm inclined to say no for the time being.
My take on this is that it looks like it's technically fine (assuming that the "your permission" thing is a typo), but he shouldn't have put that stuff in the attribution instructions, since it's not really an attribution related thing. I'm going to leave the content up and try to get ahold of the artist to ask them to move the request into the main description block so as to avoid confusion.
There are two big issues with this post, one of which is easily fixed (the title), the other of which is not (the fact that the image clearly has almost exactly the same layout as the one it's based on).
I don't know for sure about the legality of something like this (my impression is that it may be legal, although I'm not sure). What I do know is that, even without the title, a reasonable person would look at both images and come to a conclusion that the submission is clearly a copy of the original, and that there's no chance that it's because they're both generic images.
What I want to avoid are these cases where we have to quibble about whether something might be legal. People making games need to be able to use the media hosted on OGA without worrying that it might be an unlicenced copy of a work. Even if it's not something that's legally actionable, it might look bad for someone to use this in a game and then have the community discover later that it's a nearly exact copy.
As such, I'm going to depublish this image, with apologies to the artist and submitter. I wish I felt comfortable with keeping it, since it's a beautiful piece of art. If the buildings were placed differently (and that distinct red building toward the back weren't such a precise match), I'd be okay with keeping it on the site.
P.S. With respect to qubodup's Pikachu example: While he's probably right about the legality of it, that character is very clearly Pikachu regardless of the title. I'm going to establish an official policy here and now that we won't accept something that's obviously supposed to be a piece of media we don't have a license to, even if it wasn't traced and there are minor differences.
That one, I'm not so convinced. It's a red plus sign, but it could be used in an animation to indicate an increasing stat. As it is, it's not really used in a context that could be directly associated with the red cross. It's also tiny, and the proportions are clearly different.
Official policy statement:
Since trademark usage rules add restrictions above and beyond those imposed by the liceses we accept here, we cannot accept trademarked content.
I've flagged a licensing issue on the item in question. Hopefully we'll get the trademarked part removed so we can put it back up.
There are other concerns with allowing particular file formats.
Drupal uses a PHP library called (I believe) GD to do most of its image manipulation. GD is a very capable library, although it tends to expect fairly standard formats. The upside of using GD is that preview image generation is very easy for me to maintain, and it doesn't involve spending dozens of hours (that I don't have) poking around in code writing custom image conversion functionality for esoteric formats. Secondly, even if I did write that custom code, it would take away my ability to easily manage image preview formats from within Drupal's GUI, and make it just a general pain in the butt all around.
I don't have a problem with submissions in this format, but what I need in that case is for you to put them in an archive file (zip, 7z, etc) that OGA accepts, which will require that you also upload a preview image in a standard format.
Edit: One other thing I need to consider is general site usability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that XPM is a particularly common format. It's quite likely that it won't open in common image editing programs (perhaps GIMP will open them, but I doubt a lot of Windows and Mac based applications will). This is the first time I've ever seen someone request that people be able to submit XPMs. Unless there's more demand, I'm inclined to say no for the time being.
> And this is why I audit everything before it gets committed to OA (and am personally hated for it)
For the record, I for one really appreciate it.
My take on this is that it looks like it's technically fine (assuming that the "your permission" thing is a typo), but he shouldn't have put that stuff in the attribution instructions, since it's not really an attribution related thing. I'm going to leave the content up and try to get ahold of the artist to ask them to move the request into the main description block so as to avoid confusion.
Those are really nice. :)
What was your process for making them?
Something like that would definitely work.
Hey folks, here's the final answer on this:
There are two big issues with this post, one of which is easily fixed (the title), the other of which is not (the fact that the image clearly has almost exactly the same layout as the one it's based on).
I don't know for sure about the legality of something like this (my impression is that it may be legal, although I'm not sure). What I do know is that, even without the title, a reasonable person would look at both images and come to a conclusion that the submission is clearly a copy of the original, and that there's no chance that it's because they're both generic images.
What I want to avoid are these cases where we have to quibble about whether something might be legal. People making games need to be able to use the media hosted on OGA without worrying that it might be an unlicenced copy of a work. Even if it's not something that's legally actionable, it might look bad for someone to use this in a game and then have the community discover later that it's a nearly exact copy.
As such, I'm going to depublish this image, with apologies to the artist and submitter. I wish I felt comfortable with keeping it, since it's a beautiful piece of art. If the buildings were placed differently (and that distinct red building toward the back weren't such a precise match), I'd be okay with keeping it on the site.
P.S. With respect to qubodup's Pikachu example: While he's probably right about the legality of it, that character is very clearly Pikachu regardless of the title. I'm going to establish an official policy here and now that we won't accept something that's obviously supposed to be a piece of media we don't have a license to, even if it wasn't traced and there are minor differences.
We're working on it, aiming for the end of the month.
Wow, very nice work, as always! :)
Pages