@anonymous: It is a CCG. MtG is also a CCG, or TCG as some of you know them, hence you're correct. :)

I'm not sure I follow what you are getting at Julius, and apologize if I misunderstood:

a) I don't know if a kiss would always have to be erotic. I agree that kisses many times could be experienced in such a way and that they in general may even perhaps be strongly connected to sexuality. That said, there is still no [i]logically necessary[/i] connection between kissing and sexuality. In either case, no matter if it is or isn't considered erotic by the viewer, it would be perfectly fine as a part of WTactics.

b) If you with homoerotic mean two men kissing, it would also entail that a man and woman kissing would be heteroerotic. If the last one isn't a problem, then the first one isn't, and vice versa.

c) If you with homoerotic mean [i]men in uniform kissing[/i] I share your notion that such a concept is indeed [i]a part[/i] of the contemporary gay (pop)culture. Depicting uniformed homosexual men, soldiers, firemen, etc. seems to be a genre of it's own within gay culture. In this particular case however, the picture was made for WT, and the game is one of war and is filled with soldiers. The presence of uniformed men and the soldier theme is common in the game, thus it is, when the image is within it's original context, a plausible and much less erotic scenario altogether.

Regardless, artists, game designers, musicians, and other creative people have a right to decide how their work is distributed, no matter how wrong-headed some people may believe it may be.

What I object against is the very notion of "their work" ever existing. Most of the time a piece of work is "merely" the outcome of whatever shaped it's "creator".

Let' say I hire an artist to do art for a card game. I give him instructions, I pay for his work, and I get the piece delivered. So, who is the creator? Am I it, since I paid? And gave instructions? I mean, if it wasn't for me that very piece would never be created, at least not in that way.

Vice versa can be said - the artist I hired added something unique, and so on. Is the creator of a work the person that is connected to the body that is connected to the hand that created it? Is it that simplistic?

I'd suggest it leans that way. To most people pointing out an author/creator/artist is a very physical matter. You just check who - in a physical sense - performed what, more or less, in most cases. It is so because we believe in and build our world around notions of causality: We believe in cause & effect.

Ms x did something (caused) that gave birth to y (the effect of what she did), hence Ms. x is y's creator. (Let's keep this simple and only keep it to creation of visual art and music). For some bizarre reason (actually not bizarre at all, it's linked to economic models that run society..) we only give credit to the last cause, i.e. Ms. x in this case.

I personally don't see anything that can justify that sort of interruption of coherency in the "copyright logic". Why and how do we reach the conlsuion that the last effect is somehow more relevant or should be more attributed/praised/deserving compared with the "middle" or "first" effect?

Surely, y (whatever Ms. x created) is not caused by Ms. x alone in 99% of the imaginable realistic cases today. It is not, since there are a million trillion other causality chain links that preceded the moment(s) of y's creation, and Ms x herself, and all or some of them had just as vital role on y:s creation as Ms x had.

In this particular case, Ms x style would never have existed if it wasn't because she was heavily and perhaps even intentionally influenced by artists a b and c. And these artists in return have influences and causality chains/effects that go way back. (Actually, to the start of the universe, but let's not get into that and make it all to entertaining for me, especially since nobody will read this anyway..)

Let us forget all of this for a brief moment for a little while and reconnect with reality. Currently some kind of crap is taking place in the real world. There is a soccer world championship going on & TV displays this glorious and important event on all channels.

I have noticed that in sports, journalists and virtually everyone I've ever met, believe that a soccer player can "decide the outcome of the game". The best example of this is when a game result is tied up in soccer. In the last minute of the game, Ms. x makes a goal. In sports media she is bound to be described as the "victorer", as the "hero" or "deciding factor", as the one that we have to thank for the outcome of the game - our favourite team winning.

That very notion is of course utter nonsense. Only a moron would come to the conclusion that she was a decisive factor in that game in a matter that is somehow more relevant or important than anyone else on that soccer field during all of the time that the game took place, from start to finish. Needless to say, whatever happens in a soccer game, or any sport game for that matter, and what the final outcome becomes of the game, is only a result of hundreds or thousands of cause and effects during the game.

Every person on that field is totally and utterly just as responsible for her making the goal (arguably maybe even if they were at the bench with a broken bone and never got to play) as she is. The moment she made the goal, for it to even take place, for all players to be in that very position, as tired as they were, as sweaty and battered, dislocated etc, for all that to happen for sure everything that happened up until that point had to happen. Without one or more of whatever happens in a soccer game the first and second period, without the other teams coach having a bad divorce a month ago that still unsettled him and contributed to bad leadership etc, without all of that stuff we could not guarantee that Ms. x would have done that goal.

Please don't misread this: I don't claim she would not have made a goal if that day and the days before it looked differently. Maybe she would have made a goal, or more than one. We can never know. My point is simply that she is not the "decisive" factor. She is not the producer of the goal. She is not the creator of it. She is merely an instrument of the universe, of cause and effect. She is one of many overly obvious necessary factors to facilitate the goal.

Let's get back to Ms x as artist. I'd say same thing goes for her. She hasn't created anything. She + others that had various influence on her created the work she just wrapped up. Without them or whatever it was that influenced her or made the moment possible, there would be no artwork.

Logically it's simply just false to call her the "creator" of the artwork. At least if we use a logical definition of creator i.e. "being x's cause, making x the effect of what you did".

Here comes the sexist part and what makes all of this worth reading:

If we call Ms x the creator, we will in most scenarios omit exactly what you advocate in your text:

...creative people have a right to decide how their work is distributed,

The "creative people's work" can reasonably not be understood as an end product confined to a paper, JPG, MP3, CD or sheets of notes.

Da Vinci's "creative work" as a painter is not in any way only his paintings and whatever more he was painting on (roofs etc).

While it is true Da Vinci was a component in creating those works, arguably one of many other vital ones, Da Vinci's work must be understood in terms of his legacy as well as the physical paintings that contributed to cause it. Why?

Simple: If we believe that something is created as a result of an artist creating it (cause and effect) and we, because of that, accept that the artist has some kind of rights to/over that work (the effect), then by the same logic and on the same rational grounds, we must extend this to be applicable on other effects as well.

Why should we discriminate? Why do we respect Mr Da Vinci and understand he has rights over material works he crafted with his hand with the argument that he was the crafted objects cause, but at the same time deny him the same rights when he is something else's cause (or a part of it anyway)? Since when is "a work" (i.e. an effect) only understood in terms of "material output" as paper, paintings, scribblings on a wall etc? Why, and more interesting - what argument can show us that some of Da Vinci's effects should belong to him, while the masses can rob him of all the others? By what standards do we decide when an effect is a work or not: We seem to understand that Da Vinci would react if somebody stole his original painting, we are supposed to undestand that he reacts if we copy it illegaly and hand it out in the net, but, we are not capable of understanding that people copy his whole style, his ideas, his effects in whatever shape or form or lack of it they may have.

(Irrelevant sidenote: And truth be told: What is worse, when it comes to copying? Is it to copy the "soul", the "style", to replicate as many as possible of the Kung-Fu moves and run to another dojo and then claim own and exclusive rights (this is what all of the world is doing right now), or is it worse to just blatantluy copy the Kung Fu handbook and place it on the net, with credits and all, free for all to read? If we for some reason would have to choose between the two scenarios, which is worse off? Actuallu, nevermind, forget this part, it doesn't matter much what one answers here as it has little meaning for the argument in the end..)

The alert reader will react at the above passages.He/she will say "Wait a minute, didn't you previously state that nobody can create anything alone, and because of that nobody should get exclusive rights over the creation? Doesn't this apply to Da Vinci?"

Yes, it does. Point being, Da Vinci, even if he is a trend setter or great influence, at least greater to the world than most of us will ever be, he is not an exception to humanity, the order of the universe or the causality that might exist within it on some levels. No "creative people's work" can magically be the work of a sole cause (i.e. the lonesome individual).

If not, then why should we act as if it was so? That is what copyright law does: It steals from humanity, rewarding the thief - the copyright holder - with exclusive rights because he/she was the most recent individual to combine stolen parts, in best case scenario also adding somethign new. Please don't take the "stealing" metaphore to serious - it would perhaps be more proper to talk about piggybacking and locking out humanity.

While I studied sociology this wasn't controversial. While I lived with an artist and art science student, this wasn't controversial. Neither is it contoversial among the philosophers at my uni. Actually, the only time I've ever met someone that has reacted on all of this in some disagreeing way was when I studied some economy (oh lord, what a surprise here... I feel like Poirot..) and when I've met artists that believe their lives would be very peachy if it wasn't for piracy etc. Now, other people's reactions don't prove anything. I would be the last on earth suggesting that. I'm only getting at this being a fairly easy concept to grasp and that it seems to upset nobody except those that believe there are economical incentives to keep copyright as it is. And those people are many times the least credible group since they are corrupted by their self interest and tend to have a clouded judgement: Having to eat, pay rent etc does that to us ;) (Here I'm tempted to go into other topics, but I'll spare you all) and I understand their pragmatic stance, even if I maintain they can't explain away the irrationality in the copyright.

Sure, there maybe practical reasons for us not being rational and all time logical etc, but that's not the question at hand here, and many such obstacles could surely be resolved in various degrees if we truly wanted to change the world order (saying, even if we can't track all influences and relations of causes and effects, it doesn't entail that we should ignore those we can clearly track.)

If we would be honest, rational and coherent and all are as frakked up as I am we must make an addition to your statement:

Creative people only have the exclusive right to control their work when they are it's sole cause. Why? Bevause, if they have exclusive rights of a work that is not only a cause of them, then they are likely to be violating other people's rights.

So, as far as this discussion goes, I personally have no hard feelings about people imagining they created something them self. It's okey if they are, from my perspective, delusional and have an unreal perception of what's real or not. It's safe to say we don't interpret how society, and effects and chain of events etc, impacts the individual the same way, thus we would seldom come to the same conclusions.

I do appreciate all "creative people" out there. They make my life interesting and give me a lot. They enrich society in too numerous ways to list in this already too long comment. I applaud them, if such an act would show my gratitude and appreciation. I even consider myself being one of the creative people: I create games, poetry, flyers, php-powerd sites, debates, activist groups and plenty of other things. It maybe isn't two kissing elves, but heck yeah, I'm a creative person. :P

With that said, I don't see why a soccer player, or artist, or anyone else including myself, should get magical rights that can't be rationally explained unless we start oversimplifying the matter in order to fit them into the frameworks of certain interests or agendas, ideological or not.

I don't buy the illusion that I am the only cause/the only creator of this comment. I know that whoever I am today, and whatever made me write this, is just a vast chain of cause and effects, where I typing this, am acting as I do because of several reasons (causes / effects). I even know and can name several of those reasons and people that have influenced and/or affected me greatly in numerous ways that made this "amazing and creative work/comment" (yeah, I have a sense of humor, figure that ;)) what it is. If it wasn't for them and me, I could never have written this. I didn't crete. We did. I was just the final tool, totally impossible without them.

That's why I claim that I don't have any, pardon my french, exclusive bullshit rights associated to my work, no matter what the law says, as the law is not based on logic or anything scientifically sound. I would not contest the fact that the law claims I do have rights. I'd just point out that those would be legal rights. That reason alone makes them totally irrelevant to me if I want to make a constructive and rational post about rights. Nobody in philosophical academia gives a crap about the law - it's even a laughing matter, at least at the universities in Sweden.

My personal thought is that we, if we are serious about copyright etc, either try to locate and give the rights and shares of the rewards to as many as possible that actually contributed to x, and that it most often will be more than one person, or, that we find better systems altogether.

(As a utilitarian I'd go with the last option any time. And yeah, I know there are a lot of practical issues with much of what I write. A solution to them is however not necessary to test my main points, as this is not a comment about law, technology, psychology or something else that's practical in that sense: It's one about ethics and how we conclude that certain values can be justified better than others, and from what and how we drive so called rights.)

Although I'd love to discuss this in greater detail and answer questions and whatnot, I won't due to time restrictions. Please consider that if/when replying to any of my ramblings. I'd also like to add that you can all feel safe: I respect everyones licenses in here. Not because I believe all of them to be "correct" or "good", but because it's pragmatic and the law forces me to since it would spank me if I broke it - even if it is irrational. ;)

On a sidenote: I suspect my popularity went through the roof just now and that I made many friends in here ;)

*runs fast towards the exit*

bart: The creation of "collections" that could be used to group works of same/compatible/consistent style sounds like a solution. :)

I would however suggest that it's somehow designed to insure that art usually is placed in a group. If that should be done by appointing editor(s) to each group or if every user should be empowered to add/remove content from each group (or better yet: Nominate works for inclusion in a group - then editors could simply apply / deny the work into the group. If a work has been denied once into a group then it can't be nominated for it again, in order to insure that editors don't do same work over and over again etc.) There are many ways to solve all this, but using the collections concept seems right on.

pfunked: I guess tagging art that way would be a pretty decent solution until a better one, ie. the above, has been implemented. Especially as art within one and the same project usually has some consistency style wise.

The only drawbacks I see with the tagging usage as a permanent solution is:

1. If I tag all art from project x with "project x" as tag, then people who submit art that is consistent with project x's style will, in some cases, feel sidelined/that it's wrong to name a style of art after whatever project that was first to use it as a tag. While I understand what you're getting at and agree it's a good temp solution, I imagine what I originally suggested to work in a way that was more about styles and less about individual projects. I.e. instead of calling a group "Diablo 2" we would call it "Realistic Isometric Fantasy Setting" (just an example in lack of better names here).
2. Working around styles doesn't make it into a prestige thingie. I can imagine there are a lot of people that would actually never tag something as x if x wasn't their own projects name, and maybe rightfully so to a certain degree: After all, what they just tagged was never a part or created by/for x in the first place.

All in all, I think we're on the same page here...