StrategyWiki:Staff lounge/2020/December

Expanding Guide/Copyrights and image licensing
Hello! I'm generally an editor for other wikis that has set up some projects here and as I soon intend to start another with integration of Wars Wiki, I would like to introduce a full set of image licensing to the site. Currently, the policy is to just assume all images are fair use unless listed otherwise, but I feel as though this not enough to appropriately cover all images--generally fair use is more acceptable when explicitly stated on every example. Not only this, but having specific templates is much more commonly used on other sites as well. Furthermore, specific licenses could help categorize images by type. The following licenses I would like to add are the following:
 * General/Miscellaneous
 * Copyright -- Catch-all for ambiguous or unknown copyrights
 * Artwork -- Art that may be from guides, advertisements, etc
 * Sprite -- Game sprites and textures
 * Model/Render -- For 3D models or generations
 * Screenshot -- Game or web screenshots
 * Box Art -- For game covers, cartridge art, etc
 * Media -- For any audio or video files
 * Alternate free licenses
 * Creative Commons
 * GFDL
 * LGPL
 * Public Domain
 * Other
 * Self -- For those that self release an image into Public Domain that they created
 * Used with permission -- For images allowed to be used with permission from copyright holders (perhaps unlikely to be used)
 * No license -- For images so basic that licensing does not apply (for example a 32x32 solid black square used as a bullet point)

Now you might be asking how this could even be accomplished. How could it ever be done? Well, Wikirby went through the same process earlier this year and the year prior and successfully took ALL files and properly updated their licensing, as well as major categorical, quality, and informational updates in the process. This would be a good way to ensure that everything is up to date, at an appropriate quality, and that there aren't perhaps accidental duplicate images of the same thing. I am confident that the methods used on the Wikirby platform (initial licensing section / now, with 0 can work here with enough effort. I expect this to be a lengthy project, but it will be extremely useful when completed. If you have questions, feel free to ask me here or on discord. Trig - 20:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm an expert in any of this, so I'll mostly leave it to more knowledgeable people than I to really make any decisions. My chief concerns are: achievement images, since these are hard to acquire except from specific sites; screenshots, which are the bread and butter of most guides; and artwork images that you can't really get from a screenshot alone. As long as modifying the licensing doesn't make it too hard to acquire these images, then I'm sure whatever works, works. Arrow Windwhistler (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There would be absolutely no change to the means of obtaining or uploading images, with the sole exception of adding another template to the upload screen. It's not any more or less than what is currently done now, except being a lot clearer that this is what is being done to obtain the image. Some websites, and as I intend to add as well, also allow a source section to the license so you can link where you may have obtained an image. Trig - 23:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of having proper templates for each license, but a lot of those headings aren't "copyright" related. Artwork isn't a copyright description, it's a description of the content. Someone releasing something under "self" doesn't necessarily need to release to PD. And "No license" essentially means "Public domain".
 * I feel this description mixes a few different concepts: Source, content classification and copyrights. Source is hard to update after the fact and we already have content classification. However, as you mention our copyright coverage is lacking. -- Prod (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay, as I have been somewhat busy until now. I understand your point, and could perhaps rephrase this to be described another way--licenses should be created to reflect the classifications. Seeing as StrategyWiki has a little more specific amounts of classifications, they should be reflective of these categories. The licenses themselves are mostly to fully affirm that this piece of artwork is copyrighted but declared fair use because of conditions as opposed to this file is fair use as opposed to conditions. The main body of the license would be similar to the following:


 * Essentially, this description which is the copyright remains about the same, and the differences in template is the differences in describing the content classification. Is that better? Trig - 17:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)