Okay, thanks for the heads up. I'll check into it.
Ah, thanks for the heads up. I'll look into fixing that.
Adding my two cents to the rest of the discussion, Doland is now president elect of the usa, if his likeness is not fair game for parody or use in art works I don't know what is.
I agree with this 100%. However, it's also true for any copyrighted work or likeness that parodies are fair use, but that doesn't mean we host other things that we don't have the owner's permission for either. We need to be as certain as possible that if someone follows the license on a piece of art, they'll be legally in the clear. In cases of someone's likeness, it's not sufficient to just follow the license; in this case, for instance, you'd have to make sure you're using that likeness in a way that constitutes a parody.
I can't imagine any case ever being brought let alone granted hearing for using this sprite, with the possible exception of the endorsement use described above.
Nevertheless, our standard shouldn't be "is this person likely to sue?", but rather "are there any copyright issues?"
Well, it's complicated. The question, really, is whether the purpose of someone's post is to share art for use in video games, or to push a political view. If the art description is full of politically charged terminology, then we're going to insist that people change that. However, in the case of something like this, no opinion of Donald Trump is expressed either way (although it being a likeness is still an issue).
Unfortunately, this generally means we need to make judgment calls about whether people are posting something in good or bad faith. If we find that we're having to make too many of these, we might change the site rules and ban political art outright.
For the record, political discussions are banned. There are plenty of other places on the internet that people can have those.
Ya know, that's kind of a weird situation. The image itself might be public domain, but you may still need permission from the person in question to use the likeness. It seems a bit weird that someone (even the fedral government) can just snap a picture, call it public domain, and revoke someone's rights to their own likeness in that case.
I might actually see if I can consult with a lawyer and get some real legal advice on this one. The purpose here isn't to supress political art, but to make sure that the people who download it and use it aren't going to get burned in a legal sense (and likewise that OGA won't get burned for hosting it).
The trouble is with the perspective. If I use a perspective transformation to view the robot head-on, you can kind of see what I'm talking about. His right side (the side on the viewer's left) is larger than his left side in that perspective.
I used the warp tool to stretch his proportions so they were roughly symmetrical, and then transformed him back into perspective:
Obviously, after image manipulation, this is no longer pixel art, but it demonstrates what I think the issue is in terms of proprtions.
In general, it's pretty hard to do this by eye alone when drawing in perspective, but you don't have to. If you draw a rectangle in perspective, you can find the center by drawing an X from corner to corner. The center is where the lines cross. You can further subdivide that so you have a grid to work with that you can use as a guide.
Hope that makes sense. :)
Understood. I'll draft a response to that explaining that new legal information has come to my attention and, unfortunately, likenesses of people are murky so we will not be able to host the asset. As for similar cases, there is also the likeness of rick grimes (andrew linkcoln) that Master Redshrike flagged until the character name was removed. Should we re-flag that one as well, with a similar explaination and apology?
EDIT: also, dorothea the cat lady is still flagged licensing issue, but because of the image on her T-Shirt looking very much like a photo ripped from google search. However, that image on the T-Shirt may fall under the likeness rule as well. Same?
Yes, and yes, in that order. :)
As for the MikeeUSA thing, don't worry about it. It sounds like he was warned twice that he was going to be banned, and continued doing what he was doing. If anything, you were more lenient than you needed to be.
I don't want to get into banning people for opinions they've expressed elsewhere, but if someone has a history of being a troll and they start trolling on OGA, I think it's fair to not to give them any extra lenience (some people are just kind of abrasive and will chill out if you ask them to, but MikeeUSA has enough of a history that it's a safe bet he's not going to change).
Anyway, thanks again.
So, wanted to post a quick note about this... I did a bit of googling on copyright law as it relates to likenesses of people, and I came up with this:
It looks like using likenesses is a murky area to begin with (specifically, whether it's okay to use someone's likeness depends on the manner in which it is used), and one of the standards we have at OGA is that we want our assets not to be legally murky. It seems to me that we probably ought to be treating likenesses (be they political or otherwise) the same way we treat trademarks, and not allow them.
At this point I'm guessing that all of the likenesses of people on the site fall into one of two categories:
- Posts of a political nature
- Posts where the subject of the likeness has given permission for their likeness to be used (there are some posts where people have been drawn in a sci-fi or fantasy style, and since the people in question commissioned those works for that purpose, then there's no issue there)
I think what's important is if that we make a policy on this, we need to enforce it evenly, which means we'll have to enforce it on any post of someone's likeness where there isn't permission, and not just political ones (on the off chance that such posts exist).
As far as how describe your handling of political submissions:
I have been trying to be gentle with political submissions, but I don't know if it's as gentle/harsh as I should be. I have had success with requesting that the submitter "tone down" the political aspects of the comments, title, and description. I've tried to avoid asking for the removal of political aspects of the artwork itself, though. I don't know if that's best or not.
This is exactly how I think we ought to be doing it. By and large, my sense is that the community is willing to put up with art that has political aspects, provided the discussion centers around the work itself and not whatever political or moral concept the artist may be trying to convey. If someone starts getting really obnoxious or is trying to "test" the rules (as trolls often do), then we can take individual action.
Given your specific example of Dorothea the Cat Lady, it's my opinion that you did the right thing by asking them to remove political terminology. Likewise with the jam session post.
That being said, if these policies start driving people away in large numbers (or we get posts of one political persuasion or another dominating the archives of the front page) then we might need reevaluate how we enforce this stuff and be a bit more strict about it.
If it still exists, can you do me a favor and link to what MikeeUSA did to get banned (if it hasn't been deleted), and a place where he was given a warning that he would be banned? If we're missing some of this stuff, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but I'd like to be able to refer to it if we need to clarify anything about this to the community. (Also, in general, in the event that we ban people, we need to be sure to preserve a record of the post that brought on the warning, the warning itself, and the post that resulted in the ban, so that we can explain our actions if we need to and be sure to act as consistently as possible.)
Thanks for all your help with the site. I really appreciate it. :)
Quick edit: To be clear, that post with Trump's likeness will probably have to come down based on the legal issues with likenesses. Unfortunately, we're going to have to thoroughly explain any reversals of admin decision, because people tend to get mad about that.
That was the right call. Once we issue a ban warning, we need to follow through with it. I don't want to set a precedent that we're going to allow people to walk all over us.
Status update: All nodes are indexed, and I just succesfully searched for something submitted on December 30th. Looks like search is working, but let me know here if there are any other problems.