Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Images

OHOTMU scans

I'm noticing an increasing number of scans of the "model sheet" pics from the various Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe editions. Anyone got any idea how these fall copyright-wise? - SoM 20:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I dont know about their copywright status but whoever is uploadding them keeps spelling Keith Pollard (the artist who drew them all)'s name as "Kieth Pollard", and also not wikilinking it. If anyone is editing an article which has one of them could they fix this? Hueysheridan 00:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
What's the resolution on them? If they're being scanned under fair use I read somewhere we're supposed to keep the resolution low. I'm not up on what the model sheets are, but given OHOTMU is something akin to an encyclopedia, I'd err on the side of calling them copy vio's. However, I am not a lawyer. Hiding talk 21:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Model sheet's an animation term - it's the pictures distributed to all the animators to keep the character's looks consistant. The OHOTMU pics I'm referring to are the ones that show the characters in straight-on frontal shots, specifically drawn for the HBs, and, unlike panels or even pages of "normal" comics, are basically complete unto themselves and done specifically for - as you say - an encyclopedia-style publication. Since most of the characters could be covered by... umm... covers or panel scans which aren't from something in direct "competition" with WP (and they're going to be releasing TPBs of the old HBs), I don't like using them. - SoM 21:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm with you, there's other images which can be used, so they should be used. Unless Marvel are contacted and permission is given, I believe we should not use OHOTMU images. Hiding talk 23:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
THANK YOU to whoever removed those pictures! They were actually freaking me out! Did you notice that they all had even the same pose with their hands? (Left hand palm-out, right hand palm-in) That was just plain disturbing. UndeniablyJordan 04:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ra's al Ghul image

Take a look at Image:Rasalghul.jpg, guys. It has information on what website it came from, but not the ultimate source of this image. I'm really well-read on Ra's (wrote most of the article), and I still don't recognize this cover, if it even is a cover. Does anyone know, to help clarify if this is really fair use or not? The uploader has had a past history of uploading images that violate copyright. It should be noted that the image uses capitalization that is inconsistent with DC Comics's more recent capitalization of Ra's al Ghul. —Lowellian (reply) 12:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like it's from the Who's Who edition that was hole punched for ring binders and came out in the early nineties. We've discussed OHOTMU scans here and me and SoM felt they violated fair use since they are developed for an encyclopedic product and therefore use here infringes that purpose. However IANAL. Hiding talk 12:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
And I have to say that I agree. OHOTMU and Who's Who feature specific images that illustrate the concept on a broad manner. It would be like copying from another encyclopedia. Personally, I'd rather use a cover image (inside pages tend to be less clear, sometimes). I wish we could use microheroes], though, they're really nice. --Pc13 15:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Here I think I found a good cover. It's from one of Ra's first appearances. Unfortunately the traditional green robe is missing, but it's him kicking the crap out of Batman. [1] Toffile 18:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, if this was from Who's Who then I definitely don't think this is fair use. The article should use User:Toffile's image, and this Ra's image by User:DrBat should be removed and deleted. —Lowellian (reply) 20:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Fair use templates

Re: PC13's comment above... there's actually a bit of a problem there at present. WikiProject Fair use have just rewritten the {{comiccover}} template, and, IMO, they've been a bit... overspecific...:

This image is of the cover of a single issue of a comic book, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the comic book or the artist(s) which produced the comic book in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of covers of individual issues of comic books to illustrate the issue of the comic book in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Copyrights for more information.

I've complained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Re:_.7B.7BComiccover.7D.7D, but unless we get that rewritten to allow for use as generic shots (which I 'really can't see the problem with), rather than solely issue-specific stuff (and really, are we ever going to see an "Omega the Unknown #3" article that won't immediately be VfDed?), we have a problem. - SoM 20:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, which tag do we use for internal panels? Hiding talk 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
While a specific tag has been "on the tab" for a while, right now it's just {{fairuse}} - SoM 20:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's an attempt at one:
This image is a single panel from the interior of a single issue of a comic book and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the comic book or the writer(s) and/or artist(s) which produced the comic book in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of a single panel from an interior page of an individual comic book to illustrate:
  • the issue of the comic book in question;
  • the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part;
  • the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) depicted on the excerpted page of the issue in question;
  • the storyline depicted;
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Copyrights for more information.

I was thinking of putting it at Template:Comicinterior. Do I have to get permission anywhere, or can we just create them? Hiding talk 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't need to get permission, although giving the FU project a heads-up would probably be a good idea.
As for the rest, on reflection, I think we need to seperate out single images from a sequence of panels. A single panel or less (especially where it's either without dialogue or the dialogue has been cut, Handbook etc pics excepted) could probably support all your examples, while a sequence may need to be drawn somewhat more tightly, to cover only very important character information, etc, where a cover or single panel wouldn't serve the same purpose. - SoM 22:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Changed it above. Okay? Hiding talk 22:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
"Scene" (or similar) rather than issue, maybe, and probably take out "the series of which" bullet point. And {{Comicpanel}} now probably. That's about it tho, beyond the obvious category to add :) - SoM 22:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I've created a somewhat shorter version at Template:Comicpanel, since using a panel to depict a series seems... excessive (a character/group less so, since it's entirely possible to go through a whole series without a clear shot of them on the cover...). Are you okay with it? (if you are, I'll take it to the FU project before use). The category name's a redlink because I'm not 100% on the name of it - SoM 16:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, go for it. Also, I had a few thoughts on comic cover which I've brought up at the FU project about them being used to illustrate the publisher and/or the artists article as an example of their work. We might want to add that to this, not sure. Hiding talk 19:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

See {{Comicscene}} for multi-panel sequences. - SoM 17:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I tweaked the {{Comicscene}} text to sequence of panels, I think that's what you meant? :) Hiding talk 18:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah... yeah :) - SoM 18:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
When can we start using these? Is it just a question of going through the fair use tag anr recatting? If so I'm up for that. Hiding talk 18:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Giving the FU project a couple of days to object would probably be a good idea, but essentially, yeah.
Of course, I expect that at least some will have to go to {{no source}} if they don't give where they got the image from (both in terms of issue no, and who did the scan); or straight to {{ifd}} in the case of any orphaned images, 300dpi scans etc (I'm taking "low-res" to be ~72dpi, maybe a bit more generous when the original image was very small, as a compromise between legibility and "you can't print it out"). - SoM 18:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay. Could we not just fix the hi-res scans rather than delete them? As in converting them to low res and uploading over the top of the hi res one. Hiding talk 19:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
...yeah. I need to watch my deletionism :) - SoM 19:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see no objection on any level to {{Comicpanel}} or {{Comicscene}} @ WP:WPFU, so I'm going to make a start on tagging them. Given the sheer number (combined with my limited net time right now) though, this will take a while, so help would be mucho appriciated (bearing in mind that you shouldn't just retag without checking that it's not excessively high-res and that it sources both the comic the panel(s) come from and the place the scan came from, even if the uploader scanned it themself aren't all okay).

Also, Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe or Who's Who in the DC Universe pictures should be listed below, and NOT tagged with either {{Comicpanel}} or {{Comicscene}} - SoM 22:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Artist style

I repost my question: Another important reason to have single- or multiple-panel for a comic book is to depict the artist style (like in Paul Grist, eg). Does it worth being mentionned in both templates ? Lvr 10:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Lvr 09:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know. The best place to ask would be WikiProject Fair use. I've copied your question there. Hope that helps. Hiding talk 18:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
They replied that yeah, it's fair use and we can amend the tags. Hiding talk 17:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Y'know, I think you rely on Fastfission too much :)
I'm not the one who set myself up as an expert on Fair Use. Just making full use of available resources. ;) Hiding talk 18:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Remember that we're meant to use the "most free" image possible to illustrate a purpose. Now, with trademarked and copyrighted characters there is no free image. But at least the possibilty exists with artist style, so I'd be hesistant to add it. - SoM 17:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can see where we'd get a free image to illustrate an artist's style from. Wouldn't any sketches they do still have copyright attached to them depending on the character(s) drawn? And does the artist retain copyright when doing sketches? Or are you thinking of something I've overlooked? Hiding talk 18:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
SoM: I believe that the best way to illustrate a comics artist's style is clearly comics panel, where you can feel the rythme, the composition, ... of this artist; all what make comics different from simple drawing or even illustration. Sketches won't do it ! But is it is not faire use... :-(
Actually, I put such panels in many pages I'v contributed to: Paul Grist, Jiro Taniguchi, Miguelanxo Prado, ... Lvr 13:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC) (Hiding, Thanks for the question on the fair use discussion).

OHOTMU or Who's Who scans

Insert known or suspected pictures taken from one of the above publications below - SoM 22:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

All of the above listed by SoM

Above listed by Hiding talk

Trading Card scans

I thought I'd list these as they also seem to me to be a competing product.

SoM

Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game

These seem copyvio, it seems someone archived the whole Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game site.

If these images are unused, you might as well just send them to WP:IFD as orphans - SoM 17:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Hiding talk 23:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Edited images

Miscellaneous

Above listed by Hiding talk 23:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hellion

I'm trying to instate a cover as the box image @ Hellion, and User:DrBat's persisting in reverting to a high-resolution interior image. Help. - SoM 14:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I lowered the resolution, and made the image smaller. According to you "in a dispute of this nature, the prior version should be kept per WP:MoS unless there is a consensus in favour of change." And I have permission from the owner of the site as well. --DrBat 15:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and in that case the dispute was just over the image used, and the status quo was a cover ("in a dispute of this nature"). I'm disputing the fair use of the image here - SoM 15:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I have permission from the scanner. It's fair use. There are plenty of scanned interiors in Wikipedia, including images you yourself have scanned. I also lowered the resolution and made the image smaller, which you were complaing about. --DrBat 15:19, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Basically, as long as the Hellions #4 cover exists, I don't think you can use a generic shot from the interiors of what is essentially the same costume (albeit with pink instead of white) as fair use (I stress again the word "generic". It's important). - SoM 16:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
There's no fairuse problem with my image, and since its the prior image it should be kept. You once replaced the NA cover with Sentry on it to an interior image from his miniseries. Both images were basically generic too. --DrBat 18:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know then what I know now. - SoM 18:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
And again, there's no fair use problem with my image. I have permission from the scanner, and I lowered its saturation. --DrBat 21:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this got out of hand. Anyway, I added a promotional picture. Is that ok? --DrBat 01:36, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I hesitate to say this, since - like you said, this has got out of hand - but although I'm okay with it on FU grounds... it's too out-of-focus to use, really (I notice you've blown it up to 1.5 times the size of the really-small original, and the original JPG wasn't exactly in the best of nick to look at it). [And the art's by Mark Brooks. Yost is the co-writer) - SoM 02:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I guess it won't be too long before another image of the new costume comes out. If you want to have the #4 cover, I'll be ok with it. --DrBat 13:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Category naming

(BTW, we should see about CFRing Category:Comic book covers and other Category:Comic book *s to be in line with the renamed writer/artist/etc categories, perhaps?) - SoM 16:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The category renames is an idea, what do you suggest comic cover? Comics cover just doesn't fit somehow, does it? Hiding talk 19:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Comics covers? That fits with how you arranged Category:Comics writers, etc. - SoM 17:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Comics covers does fit with how they are organised, yeah. I'm just worried it sounds wrong. But it does cover graphic novels better than comic book would. On that note, also, there's discussion about moving Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comic books) to (comics) on the talk page. Hiding talk 18:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, "Comics writers" and other "Comics *s"es DO sound a bit wrong as well, but we've started down that route unless you want to CfR them all over again...
Well, it's not that so much as I could see where we could eventually break out more specific subcats like Category:Artists of American comic books, which could be more specific and easily understood than comic book artists ever was. But then if we do that do we then standardise to cartoonists of comic strips for Category:Comic strip cartoonists? I suppose that would then allow us to have writers of comic strips and artists of comics strips for those that don't specifically do both. But is this just another can of worms? Am I forever doomed to be the tinker man of WikiProject Comics? Hiding talk 19:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Deep breaths :) I don't think those breakouts are in the picture any time soon. - SoM
And I always wondered why the NC page didn't follow itself in it's choice of diambig tag :) - SoM 18:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Image problems

There are a lot of images we have of comics covers that are inaccurately tagged. I'm thinking of things like Image:0504 ULTX045.jpg, which is not actually the cover of UXM 45, but a piece of promotional art released by Marvel to promote UXM - the cover of UXM 45 being something that has the UXM logo, etc.

The promo art has some copyright problems. For one thing, it's all mistagged. For another, it's an image that the copyright is wholly held by Marvel or DC, and released to specific sites, none of which are us - the promo art is a bit-for-bit copy of something that DC or Marvel owns the copyright to. For a third, these images are usually larger and higher resolution than cover scans, and lower resolution helps with fair use claims.

I encourage everybody to go through Category:Comic book covers and replace anything they can with a scan over promo art - in a week or so I'm going to be going through and making the deletions of the promo art. Snowspinner 23:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Aren't you the guy who recently got RFCed for inappropriate deletions - SoM 00:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Of course, since the deletions were of AfD debates I thought were invalid, it may not be entirely fair to use that to describe me as someone overly eager to delete. Snowspinner 00:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you please specify where in policy your actions are grounded before you commit them. It seems if you are correct that they are not comic book covers, then to me the best thing to do would be to simply replace the tags with the Template:Promotional. This is specifically designed for, as an example and to use your own words, a piece of promotional art released by Marvel to promote UXM. I 'm also unconvinced your arguments against fair use are valid. Comic book covers are also wholly copyright, and any scan is a bit-for-bit copy. However, I remain unconvinced that they are not comic book covers. If the images in question are released by the companies as the cover, then they are the cover, just a different form of said cover. As to resolution, if that is a concern, and I for one don't believe it is, it can easily be fixed by resampling. Note Image:Aquaman26.jpg has a fairly low resolution. Also note you can not simply delete any images, as far as I know, they have to be listed at images for deletion, surely.
However, in the instance of Image:0504 ULTX045.jpg, this can be tagged with {{Template:No source}}, the uploader notified, and then in seven days it will be deleted. Hiding talk 09:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Sure - the basic issue is that we've been told repeatedly to please show no mercy on unfree images. Ideally, we want to move to a point where there are no images that we're trying to justify on fair use grounds at all - where everything is either public domain or GFDL.
The root of the problem is this - sitting and saying "Gee, we'd like to see more free images" hasn't worked. Instead, the encyclopedia is getting more and more dependent on unfree images with fair use justifications determined by armchair copyright lawyers most of whom have never taken an IP class. This is a large pile of things that just beg for a lawsuit, and Wikipedia's legal defense fund is minimal at best.
The promotional art is still a problem - its presumed fair use grounds are to illustrate the product - that's distinct from the series, the character, or the artist. So the Aquagirl image in question, being as it's used in Aquagirl, not Aquaman, and more speifically not Aquaman #33, doesn't even meet the stated fair use grounds of Template:Promotional.
The ideal situation is that we would use only actual low res scans of covers (Which are a different item for the purposes of copyright than the promo art, weird as that may seem), only use them to illustrate titles, and would use details from covers and panels from within the comic to illustrate characters whenever possible, because that, being excerpted, makes fair use grounds much stronger. Certainly when the promotional art is easily replaced by scanned art, which for comics covers it is, it's a slam dunk. Snowspinner 14:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Snowspinner consulted with me before engaging in this course of conduct, and I've had several discussions with Jimbo on how we should deal with copyrighted images. I feel comfortable that Snowspinner's course of conduct in this situation is appropriate. We have been urged repeatedly by Jimbo and the Board to be as ruthless as possible on unnecessary use of nonfree images, especially in those cases where the images lack source or license information. Unsourced and unlicensed images may be deleted on sight and without warning if the image has been on Wikipedia for more than seven days. The use of the warning tag is optional, and in my opinion should only be used on images that have been recently uploaded.
Promotional images released to the press generally, actor's headshots, and the like are generally acceptable as fair use because the intended use of the image is to be put out for people to see it. However, as Snowspinner explained the situation to me these promotional images are advances offered to specific magazines and/or websites as a bonus value for that content publisher, and are in the nature of exclusives. In this case, our use of that content dilutes the value of the content to the licensee and the copyright holder, and our fair use argument is badly undermined. Such use is probably not fair use and must be avoided.
We've already lost one good admin due to unnecessary harassment of him for attempting to serve Wikipedia's interest by eliminating as many instances of nonfree images as possible. Please just accept that we can't use nonfree images willy-nilly and that we must make all deliberate effort to protect the legal interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the encyclopedia against the desire for complete coverage of each topic. Snowspinner's advice regarding comics images, above, appears sound and should be followed. Kelly Martin 15:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
They're not "exclusive" in any significant way - their primary purpose is to go with solicitations of material, and they're released to a number of websites which is certainly into double figures.
Basically, three months before a comic is released, it's solicited. This involves, for each title, a short text blurb, the cover (if it's been completed in time, which is the case in 80-90% of cases), the creative team, pricing information and an order code. That's the purpose of them - not any "bonus value for the content provider" - as I say, they're published by umpteen different sites and in print form in at least two seperate publications.
And, if you're looking to eliminate nonfree images completely, you might as well wipe every comic image right now and save yourself the trouble later. There is no free image of Spider-Man, etc - even if you drew it yourself, it can't be free while Spider-Man is a trademark of Marvel. - SoM 18:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Please be aware we do respect the fact that we can't willy nilly use any old image, and have been attempting to regulate the images ourselves. However, since no lawyer seems to have been prepared to lay out what constitutes fair use, because, as far as I can tell, having read every page on Wikipedia regarding fair use, it is unclear what fair use is until a judge decides it, yes, we have had to rely on our own intepretation of what fair use is.
And if, as you say, promotional images released to the press generally, actor's headshots, and the like are generally acceptable as fair use, then explain why these are not fair use as they are also, as SoM states, and to my knowledge, promotional images released to the press generally. It just happens that most of the press disseminating it are websites. Perhaps someone can explain the position that these are exclusive images. This might help us understand it better. At the moment we seem to be in a so-and-so said situation. I'm sure you'll agree that clarity would help us understand the position better.
That said, we do defend the position that any unsourced image should be deleted. However, I'm surprised to hear that the use of the warning tag is optional, is that listed anywhere in policy? Hiding talk 19:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
As to the argument from Snowspinner regarding the Aquagirl image and that tagging it as promotional art is still a problem - its presumed fair use grounds are to illustrate the product - that's distinct from the series, the character, or the artist. So the Aquagirl image in question, being as it's used in Aquagirl, not Aquaman, and more speifically not Aquaman #33, doesn't even meet the stated fair use grounds of Template:Promotional.
I was led to believe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use that as long as the image was captioned, in this case captioned Aquagirl as shown on the cover to Aquaman #33, the caption covered any fair use claim. (Did I forget to sign? Hiding talk)
Header for linking purposes
I won't reply to everything here (I don't have time) but on only two issues.
One: If these are truly promotional images, then the fair use argument is quite good, actually better than for scanned images of the covers. Such images should be tagged as {{promotional}}, however, not as "comic book covers", because they're not. And they must be sourced or they will be deleted.
Two: A cover image should only be used to illustrate an article about that issue. Do not use a full cover image to illustrate an article about a character. Characters should be illustrated with excerpts of images showing only enough of the image as to allow identification of the character (in other words, crop the image). An article about an artist should only include examples of his or her work if there are no articles on the works themselves. In this case, the "article" about the work is merged into the article about the artist, and so the image is identifying one of the topics of the article. Same goes for single issues on series article: only place the image on the series article if there is no separate article about the issue. You can, of course, use a photograph of the artist himself on the page. The underlying concept is that a non-free image should only be used to illustrate an article about the exact subject of the image, and nothing else. Kelly Martin 20:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
It's also worth noting, I think, that the Aquagirl image is just a lousy choice of images. It's not a good illustration of Aquagirl - it's highly stylized and doesn't show her face. An internal panel of the comic that shows her clearly would be a better illustrative and copyright choice. But there are plenty of other problems with things Image:2765 400x600.jpg is being used to illustrate Green Lantern - Image:0504 ULTX045.jpg isn't being used for anything at all. Image:Astonishing4beast.jpg is being used to illustrate Beast (comics) despite not actually really being an image of the character - if it's meant to illustrate his original form, a color picture of that would be preferable. And it's just thrown in the article without any commentary within the article on what it's supposed to illustrate. Nyssa Raatko has two separate cover images of her.
And the situation is no better on actual cover scans. Image:Atomspec.png is an orphan, Image:Avengers 144.jpg is being used in Hellcat (comics) when a detail would be visually better. Image:Avenger-147.jpg is being used for Serpent Crown, despite the Serpent Crown being a small part of the image, and the article having five images, at least one of which I have no idea what even has to do with the article. Snowspinner 21:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there some sort of policy on this, because we have just been through one rewrite of the comic fair use tags to reflect advice given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. If you can point me to something that specifies that we can not use covers to illustrate the series, or the character or group represented by the titular series of that cover, (i.e. using a cover of X-Men to illustrate the X-Men article), then please do as I am finding we are being given conflicting advice by people without any sourcing of arguments.
  • If a magazine such as The Comics Journal can excerpt pages of comic books to illustrate artist's techniques under fair use, why can't we? What legal advice has Wikipedia sought on this issue, and is it available to us editors? You state that The underlying concept is that a non-free image should only be used to illustrate an article about the exact subject of the image. Could you please explain in what way the art on the cover is not the exact subject of the image. Comic book covers are in themselves promotional tools, much as magazine covers are,aimed at enticing the browser to buy. The image chosen is the selling point, and is just as arguably the subject of the cover as the individual comic book issue. I'm not sure how dragging orphan files and non-sourced files into this helps, you'll find we all agree with the policy regarding those.
  • And please note, I proposed to yourself and Snowspinner that promotional images should be tagged as {{promotional}}, however, not as "comic book covers", because they're not rather than deleting them. I hope you find you can do this instead of deleting them. Hiding talk 12:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that the Comics Journal can reprint chunks of comics because they're being used in a journalistic or critical capacity. Wikipedia is not journalism nor criticism. I remember a book publisher telling me a book about comics would have to go unilustrated because it would cost too much to licence the images (it was one of those £3.99 pocket guide things), presumably because it was a guide rather than a piece of criticism. Where exactly Wikipedia falls in all this I have no idea... --Peteashton 20:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, in a recent Journal, #268, Noah Berlatsky writes an article on copyright, Read This And I Own Your Brain, in which he touches on fair use and the Journal:
  • According to fair use, a small portion of a work may be reprinted for educational or critical purposes, without getting the permission of the copyright holder.
  • ...For example, fair use is what allows critics to quote from the books they are reviewing - or to reprint art for purposes of discussion...
He also points to Susan M. Kornfield, J.D., A Principled Approach to Copyright Policymaking, available online as a PDF at [2].
Now, as an encyclopedia, are we not educational? And beyond that, are our articles not critiques, in the sense that they are articles of critical assessment and discussion? That would then make Wikipedia both critical and educational, and allow us fair use on either grounds, yes?
I'm not sure about this. Wikipedia is a step removed from criticism. An encyclopedia isn't a book of criticism and critiques imply a POV. What Wikipedia does is give an overview of the critiques and reviews available. I can't quite put my finger on it but that seems to be the reasoning. For example, a piece criticising McClouds Understanding Comics could reprint a passage and comment on / argue with it. This is justified as being a dialogue and therefore useful for society. I suspect that a Wikipedia article would not reprint the debate verbatim but summarise the points.
Critical: Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment. I believe that since we are obliged to avoid POV, we are being critical, in that we are making critical judgements as to what we include and do not, and therefore we produce critiques, A critical discussion of a specified topic. I believe encyclopedia articles are criticism: The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works. (Defs from dictionary.com). Encyclopedia articles certainly classify. An encyclopedia makes a judgement of worth in the act of choosing what is and isn't included. That is a form of criticism in and of itself. If an article can be written on Understanding Comics which is encyclopedic, it must charectarise debates of the work, and it must therefore be fair use to include contentious passages of such a work. I feel we would not be having this conversation if we were debating quoting a line or two from a novel, for example the line "and short and sharp, he took her, short and sharp and finished, like an animal." in Lady Chatterley's Lover.
However that doesn't deter from the educational value of an encyclopedia.Hiding talk 13:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't just any encyclopedia: it's an encyclopedia whose entire contents are released freely to everyone under GFDL and can be reused by anyone for any purpose, including a commercial purpose. I don't think standard definitions of "fair use" take this into account. We aren't just clipping a picture and including it in our interview, as magazines like the Comics Journal do; we're saying "take this picture and do whatever you want with it". ←Hob 23:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, not quite. The fair usage applies to Wikipedia usage. Other people utilising Wikipedia information have to decide their own fair use policy on such images. We're not saying "take this picture and do whatever you want with it" because we have tagged our usage of it as fair use, not as GDFL. What is GDFL is its usage in Wikipedia articles. If we were doing as you suggest we'd be breaking copyright, since we have no legal basis for releasing any copyrighted image under any license. However, I think I'm going to raise this issue at the pumnp, as it is worrying. Hiding talk 15:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I'v ejust uncovered Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which states:
  • Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights, personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in the articles of the Wikipedia encyclopedia are the property of their respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wikipedia articles under the GFDL licensing scheme. Unless otherwise stated Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites are neither endorsed nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such rights and as such Wikipedia can not grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.
I think that covers your concern? Hiding talk 15:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Trademark and copyright are not similar; I wouldn't be so sure that that paragraph applies. Check GNU Free Documentation License#Materials for which commercial redistribution is prohibited, which seems to indicate that not all "fair use" materials can be included in GFDL articles - only the ones for which any subsequent use is fair, including a commercial one. With the current focus on image policing, I'm sure there's a more in-depth discussion of this going on somewhere on WP, I just haven't found it yet. ←Hob 20:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought images of Superman and the like were protected by trademark? However, if your reading of GNU Free Documentation License#Materials for which commercial redistribution is prohibited is correct, then I fail to see how any "fair use" materials can qualify under GDFL as they are incompatible. However I also fail to see how this is a problem for Wikipedia, but rather for those using Wikipedia material. Hiding talk 04:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding illustration there's a difference between having an illustration of Superman simply to show what Superman looks like and an image of Superman to back up an argument that his costume represents a fascistic patriarchy (for example). The latter would be fair use. The former has no critical worth. --Peteashton 13:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The former has worth in an educative work, which an encyclopedia most certainly is. Surely an illustration of Superman is neccessary since he is a visual character. I mean, it is educative to those unfamiliar with a visual character to use an image to illustrate their appearance and convey their appearance correctly. (I admit Superman is a bad example, but I hope the point carries). Hiding talk 13:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Now to return to comic book covers and the argument that they can only be used to illustrate the issue in question, I think we have to work out whether a comic book issue is a stand-alone work or a part of a greater work, the comic book series. I would argue that it is a serial publication, and therefore the comic book issue is a part of a greater work and that the cover of a particular issue therefore represents only a part of the total work, and thus fair use allows us to utilise it. However, if someone who is a lawyer can advise better, that would be perfect. As to using art to illustrate an article section regarding an artist's style, again I believe fair use covers such usage as it is both educational and critical. Hiding talk 10:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use compatible with GDFL

Okay, I've asked around and it appears "fair use" is compatible with the GDFL. See, [[meta:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?]] in which Jimbo states:

Remember that the GNU FDL works inside the framework of copyright law. The GNU FDL is a way for authors to conditionally give up some of the rights they have under copyright. It is not a claim to be able to impose additional restrictions above and beyond what copyright grants. Since fair use is legitimate in copyrighted works, an author may use fair use. But this doesn't preclude that author from releasing the work under the GNU FDL, because the GNU FDL does not pretend to impose additional restrictions beyond copyright, but rather to merely give up some rights of restriction that are normally a part of copyright. Jimbo Wales 13:59, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hope that clears that one up. I've also asked and we are also covered under critical usage, an encyclopedia article is deemed to be a critical assesment. Hiding talk 16:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Some specific fair use questions

OK, I'd still like to clear out some of the comic covers, so here's a few specifics I found that are problems, and that I intend to wipe - does anyone have a persuasive reason not to? (And then I'll use this as guidance in going through the rest of the list)

  • Image:Astonishing4beast.jpg - currently being used to illustrate Beast (comics) as a secondary illustration. Problematically, it is not a picture of the Beast as such - if it is intended to illustrate his pre-fuzzy form, a color and right-side up shot would be demonstrably better, making the claim that it illustrates or explains something tenuous. I'd like to completely delete in this case.
  • Nyssa Raatko has two covers to illustrate one character - remember that fair use does mandate that we use the smallest portion of work possible. In the case of the cover in the infobox, I'd like to crop to just include Nyssa. I'd like to delete the other cover.
  • Image:Avenger-147.jpg is one of three cover images (On top of one panel) used to illustrate Serpent Crown. I would either like to crop to just the crown from this one, or to use the Bryne golden crown image. Either way, I'd like to delete so that this article has one cover image, not three, again due to the "smallest portion necessary" portion of fair use guidelines.

Thoughts on these five? Snowspinner 15:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Provided they meet speedy criterion I5, no problem with deleting orphans at all in general.
Yeah, dump the AXM Beast cover (subject to I5 or listing on IFD), the second Nyssa image and crop the other Nyssa image and the Hellcat one.,
Problem with Serpent Crown is that *none* of the images are very suitable as a simple illustration of the subject of the article. A147 could be arguably be used as a demonstration of the effects of the SC, but the crown itself isn't large enough to use as an illustration in it. And the golden image is the wrong colour and significantly obscured by a great flippin' textbox. The Set image is hard to argue for, especially if it's an OHOTMU image as I suspect though, and the SM9 image is inexcusable, since the Crown doesn't even clearly appear. - SoM 19:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Robin: Year One and Batgirl: Year One

Robin: Year One and Batgirl: Year One, are two miniseries retconning the eary life of this characters. Add info or Article would is a good idea ?--Brown Shoes22 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd say add small notes about the changes where needed in the articles about the characters (ie, "blah blah blah (now retconned to blah blah blah)"). Individual articles seems like overkill. --InShaneee 20:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't form a proper opinion unless I know the answer to the following question: are there any other character's Year One books other than these and Batman? --Jamdav86 20:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I suggest, since it seems to be primarily a Batman-related retconning, a page entitled Batman Family: Year One, with a section for each character's series. The Batman: Year One section could be a link to the main article if you merged in its sequels e.g. Long Halloween, as that article is pretty small. The rest of the titles don't need their own pages then, just a link to this article from the main character page. (If it was more of a DC Universe-wide trend of retconning, I would have suggested DC Universe: Year One, but that obviously isn't needed.) Jamdav86 21:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

There was a JLA: Year One maxiseries and a whole year of Year One annuals (1995, I think). Plus lots of Legends of the Dark Knight - SoM 21:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Alright then, DC Universe: Year One explaining concept & listing titles --Jamdav86 21:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with an article on each of these storylines? We have articles on individual Simpsons episodes - why not on major arcs of comic books? Phil Sandifer 23:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no real objection to that, as long as they are long and detailed enough to merit it, but I'd still like a hub page with short summaries. In fact, we could have a template similar to the one at the bottom of the different Doctor Whos (see Christopher Eccleston for an example) that gives the order of story arcs. --Jamdav86 18:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
How's this for the succession idea? — User:Jamdav86/Batman box --Jamdav86 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Fine, ignore me, I can take it. (He runs into a deep corner of Wikipedia sobbing gently) --Jamdav86 19:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comic book barnstar?

An idea just came to mind: A barnstar specifically for editors of comic articles. Might be a nice bit of encouragement to get an award for working hard on articles. That, and there are editors who deserve one. :)--Kross | Talk 23:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're just angling for one yourself, aren't you? --Jamdav86 19:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Not really. But we do need some sort of award to give to people for making great contributions to the comic articles. DoctorWorm7, for example, has done alot. He added a ton of info to the Rann article and practically wrote the one on Kangaroo (comics).--KrossTalk 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Another image issue

The images of stamps used on articles like Lil Abner are a problem - they copyright notices say that they're only for illustrating the stamps, not the subjects. Phil Sandifer 20:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, going by what we were told at Wikipedia: WikiProject Fair use, it's not an issue as long as an image of a stamp is properly captioned as a stamp featuring (foo), because it is then still illustrating a stamp. Its placement in an article does not affect the nature of the image. Hiding talk 11:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The latter part of that claim seems patently absurd - its placement in an article establishes context for the image. Since the image is clearly being used in an article about L'il Abner and is the only image in the article, it clearly does serve as an illustration of the character more than of the stamp, which is mentioned in one sentence at the bottom of the article, quite far away from the actual image. Phil Sandifer 16:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going back to Wikipedia: WikiProject Fair use and raise it there. Someone somewhere must surely be able to give a definitive answer one way or the other. Hiding talk 18:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
They feel it probably isn't, which isn't super definitive, but I'm happy to bow to the consensus. It is definitely inappropriate in Hillbilly, at which point it becomes an orphan image and also technically has no source, so if you want to delete it, feel free to follow that process. Hiding [[User talk:Hiding|talk]] 15:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comicsbooktitlebox

Comicsbooktitlebox

[3]

1st time making a box. Help !!!--Brown Shoes22 18:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Earth-1, Earth-One, Earth-one

Considering the recent multiverse-related activity in DC, the Earth-#s appear to be popping up (though mostly in the Infinite Crisis article). One user began changing instances of Earth-1 to Earth-One, but I am particular towards Earth-one. Considering that DC capitalizes all the letters in dialogue, we have no definitive answer, unless I've missed a recent news piece or interview that suggests different. What are all your thoughts on this one? KramarDanIkabu (speak) 04:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware, but in the last issue of Infinite Crisis, Kal-L referred to them (in dialogue) as EARTH-ONE and EARTH-TWO. Considering the Manual of Style suggests writing out small numbers, I would write them out, but I think it should be up to this project's participants. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 06:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
DC uses Earth-One with a captial O on their website here. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Then that's our answer. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 15:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Monica Rambeau

Uhm... I'm kind of new here. So, maybe someone can help me. I have a question. I just finished adding to the Photon page. I was just wondering, should the page be called Monica Rambeau? Because she just recently, had a name change to Pulsar and I'm not entirely sure she's going to be using that name in the new Nextwave book. With her name changes and all, would it be better to have the title of the page, her real name? So can someone get back to me.- --LEC20 23:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

She's not going to be using a codename in Nextwave.
Combined with the fact that Genis-Vell is currently using the "Photon" codename (And I deliberately created that page under his real name over much the same issues), I'd move it to Monica Rambeau and turn Photon (comics) into a disambig page. - SoM 13:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Public domain artwork

Does anybody know of good, preferably online, sources of public domain comics or comics artwork? Especially for American comics of the Golden Age, there should be tons of material available from failed publishers that could be used to illustrate articles here. --Martin Wisse 08:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any, and nothing from that era is public domain yet. The public domain limit in the US is anything published pre 1923, which predates the accepted start of the golden age. Hiding talk 10:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Its not as simple as that: before the changes in the US copyright laws in 1978 or so, copyright had to be renewed every 25 years or so: for a lot of companies that folded in the 1940s or 1950s this did not happen on time to prevent their comics from sliding into public domain. This is why AC comics for example can reprint their Golden Age comics. --Martin Wisse 15:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
There are very few publishers, bankrupt or otherwise, that let their characters lapse into the public domain before 1978. I can only think of the Nedor Comics characters, which were used in Alan Moore's Terra Obscura. I'm not sure which publisher the Americomics material was originally from. --Pc13 16:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Locations

Just making sure I place my question, in another spot. - -- LEC20 22:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use and comics images

Due to the high volume of discussion on this issue and the repeated number of times it has come up, I have created a centralized discussion page to invite discussion on and form a consensus regarding the fair use of images within articles regarding comics.

All opinion welcome! Hiding talk 16:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Dazzler

User:Novaya havoc keeps on reverting Dazzler's current costume in the SHB box to an old one (which already has an image in the article.) --DrBat 12:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The "current" costume is not yet established. Comics characters change their outfits often; is WikiComics attempting to constantly update the images to fit whatever "all new look" the artists churn out, or provide accurate information on the characters? Dazzler is most established in the image depicted (which is from her most recent appearance, no less); the "new" look hasn't even been seen in-canon yet (just cover and promo art).
These diversions happen all over WikiComics articles. Are they to discuss the character/creative/conceptual changes, or try and give chronology and history of the characters themselves irrespective of the writers and artists behind them?
At any rate, I have contributed thoroughly to the Dazzler wiki article, and find it most suitable to put the most recognizable image of the character as the primary photo - not the most recent. Especially before it's even taken hold in-canon. Novaya havoc 20:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
So basically, when she wears the new costume in the next issue you'll be ok with it?
For a long time now, Dazzler has never worn the disco outfit outside of her performances (she dropped it in Dazzler #38).
She only wore the outfit in the beginning of NXC because it was a novelty act and she had trouble finding jobs (which she lamented on, saying "not my choice of suit these days" [4]).--DrBat 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
No, when it's established as a consistent image I will attest that it is "predominant." Not only has it only been used for solicitation and preview purposes, it is not even one month old! Furthermore, fan reaction has been highly critical of the new appearance and almost every Marvel "Dazzler" item from handbooks to statuettes have used her classic silver look. Dazzler has had SEVERAL "new" looks throughout the 90s: X-Men 10-11, X-Men 47, Eve of Destruction, X-Babies Reborn, Marvel Fanfare... are they predominant? The silver one depicted has remained the staple.
If you're so intent on seeing this image in the article, box it and put it in the character's history (which is a sentance of information on this "new direction," ironically) where it belongs. By next year, the look will be gone and ridiculed like most failed character redesigns, and replaced with something else. No need to mess with 20+ years of character history because of a few solicit images that haven't yet taken hold. Novaya havoc 22:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and when the costume changes again we can always replace it with the current image. :)
And what, the old Disco costume hasn't been ridiculed? I've seen more people make fun of it than I have her new costumes. --DrBat 23:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not what encyclopedias are for! They are references for the character as a whole. They are not a news source. Your obsessive-compulsive nature over the "most current image" is grating. The classic image is that -- classic. The new image is promo/fad. Give it time to be established before affixing it to the character in such a way. Novaya havoc 23:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The point is, it isnt her real outfit anymore, and besides for a couple of apparances she doesn't wear it anymore. Almost all comic characters contain their current outfit in the SHB box, and she shouldn't be any different. The classic image is already in the article
As for not being a newsource; so articles shouldn't be relevant now?--DrBat 23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
No, the point is that for 20-odd years it has been recognized as the definitive Dazzler outfit to fandom and has even been used as such until mid-2005. Again, Wikiproject: Comics makes no mention of standardizing images to "current" character images. Of course articles are relevant, but they often use disclaimers of things to come and do not supercede older information. Novaya havoc 23:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Two points of order

  1. My advice - both of you should go away and sleep on this. You're not getting anywhere.
  2. The Handbook cover Novaya cites also has Cable in an outfit he wore for a number of panels in the low double digits before dumping (not to mention the weird gun hand he's never had). All of the "90s redesigns" he cites are slight variants on her blue costume - which the new one is too. And given that this is, by my reckoning, her first regular slot since the Siege Perilous story of the late 1980s, it's hardly surprising nothing has stuck since since she's had no artist draw her for more than three issues in a row since then. - SoM 23:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and just a thought - how many characters have "iconic" costumes, ones the general public would recognise at a start? Superman and Spider-Man certainly. Batman probably, although his look's varied a lot more so there's more leeway. Them, I'd argue against changing the box pic to show a significantly different look like Electric-Superman or Venomsuit-Spidey even if it was "current". This is frelling DAZZLER - the character whose last issue said "Because you demanded it - the last issue!" on the cover. Put a picture of her in front of a random member of the public, in either silver or blue, and they won't have a clue. - SoM 23:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree completely with SOM here, and if you two can't sort out a working compromise I'm going to suggest we use a scan of that last issue as the image in the template box, since that is the most iconic picture of Dazzler thanks to its tagline, and the one most likely to qualify as fair use. Hiding talk 09:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lashina

I'm not sure what precedents you good people have set for minor characters, but I recently came across a page (originally in Spanish) for Lashina (of the Female Furies). I put it up on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation, and some kind soul did translate it. I've since tried to polish it up a bit, but I'm still not sure if Lashina is a significant enough character to deserve her own page (or if her listing at Female Furies is sufficient). I figured someone here would know whether the page should be put up on AfD (and any content that's not already there added to Female Furies), or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Best bet is to merge it into Female Furies and leave a redirect at Lashina, as per some policy or other. Um, WP:FICTION I think:
  • Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.
There we go, I'll do that now. :) Hiding talk 09:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Done Hiding talk 10:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Nicely done, and thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, the two main current comics FAs - Superman and Batman

Both were proposed over two years ago and added shortly after, and they didn't have particuarly arduous nomination processes

Here's the difflinks between the nominated and current versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman&diff=30729616&oldid=1869903 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superman&diff=30685724&oldid=1862982

Frankly, neither of the articles - as they were or as they are - would make FA today and I think there needs to be some sort of effort to move them to real FA standard before they go to WP:FARC. In addition, they've both just been chopped down after having {{verylarge}} tags slapped on them, and that's an extra reason for polishing.

Anyone game? - SoM 17:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to add a hilarious comic

He is gaing a lot of publicity in the southeast. THomas Guastaferro. How do I add him to Wikipedia?

This is Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, which is a project to improve articles about comic books. Silly bugger. --Jamdav86 19:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Template for citing comic books

I've created Template:Comic book reference as a tool for allowing us to cite referneces in comic books. Since a lot of articles draw on the actual comic books in part for reference, I think it will be a useful template. Examples of use would be if someone was discussing a costume change, perhaps, then they could cite the issue the change occurred in, even the panel if neccessary. It can also be used in referenceing plot points, or for panels, pages or sequences which support critical points in an article. A discussion of Kirby dots could reference panels in which they appear, when discussing changes in art style, for example Keith Giffen's style springs to mind, it would also be useful to cite his early and latter Legion of Super-Heroes work as comparisons. I'll be working on templates for comic strips and editorial cartoons next. Hiding talk 21:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_7&oldid=386308211"