Discussion:
[Inkscape-devel] gallery moderation, fan art, and copyright
brynn
2017-07-18 03:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi Friends,
Another moderation question has come up (mostly just for me), which is
about how we want to define "fan art". Most (if not all) of the moderators
think fan art should be allowed in the gallery. But I think it might be a good
idea to have some parameters about it, and so I'm hoping the community can offer
their thoughts about it.

For a starting point and example, I'm totally ok with the Wikipedia
defintion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_art) :

"Fan art, or fanart, are artworks created by fans of a work of fiction
(generally visual media such as comics, film, television shows, or video games)
and derived from a series character or other aspect of that work."

Does anyone think it should be expanded or restricted in scope, from
there? Or should the description be more or less detailed or specific?


A separate but related question is whether we want to bother with
copyright issues, or leave it up to the license holder whether they want the
image removed. For example, if someone reproduces a Pepsi or Coke logo. Or I
remember a popular AI tutorial a few years ago, about how to draw the Chevy
logo, which I always wondered whether it was a copyright violation. Those don't
particularly seem to be fan art, at least not by the wikipedia
definition....unless maybe television commercials are considered fiction.

Martin says there is a concept within the DMCA and EUCD known as "safe
harbor" which protects small websites from being responsible if its members post
a copyrighted image. At least that's my understanding, based on the research I
did about it. I might not have paraphrased it technically correctly.

So should we go with the "it's not our job /we're not lawyers" position?
Or should we be a little bit pro-active for blatant copyright issues. If we
want to be a little bit proactive, I'm thinking we should also set some
parameters about that. Or at least clearly state our policy.

Fyi, this is what the current CoC says about it "Art must be your own
original creation or derived from artwork available under an open licence. We
cannot accept submissions that infringe copyrights."

Personally, since Inkscape is an artist's tool (among many other uses),
I think the community should be a little proactive about protecting copyrights
and/or licenses. But I also think that if it requires a long and complex
discussion, or detailed changes to the CoC, then falling back to "it's not our
job" might be reasonable. But if that's the case, then the CoC isn't properly
stating our position, and perhaps should be edited.

Thanks for any thoughts or comments you might have about these things.

All best,
brynn
Ryan Gorley
2017-07-18 05:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Hi Brynn,
That definition of "fan art" seems appropriate to me.

I think how DeviantArt handles issues of copyright is probably a good
starting point: http://about.deviantart.com/policy/copyright/

The key takeaways from my speed reading is that we probably need to do
better educating users of the liability of distributing copyrighted
material. We also need to publish a DMCA takedown form, and a complaint
mailing address. It's worth a closer read, but I do think we should
probably be proactive.
Post by brynn
Hi Friends,
Another moderation question has come up (mostly just for me),
which is about how we want to define "fan art". Most (if not all) of
the moderators think fan art should be allowed in the gallery. But I
think it might be a good idea to have some parameters about it, and so
I'm hoping the community can offer their thoughts about it.
For a starting point and example, I'm totally ok with the
"Fan art, or fanart, are artworks created by fans of a work of fiction
(generally visual media such as comics, film, television shows, or
video games) and derived from a series character or other aspect of
that work."
Does anyone think it should be expanded or restricted in scope,
from there? Or should the description be more or less detailed or
specific?
A separate but related question is whether we want to bother
with copyright issues, or leave it up to the license holder whether
they want the image removed. For example, if someone reproduces a
Pepsi or Coke logo. Or I remember a popular AI tutorial a few years
ago, about how to draw the Chevy logo, which I always wondered whether
it was a copyright violation. Those don't particularly seem to be fan
art, at least not by the wikipedia definition....unless maybe
television commercials are considered fiction.
Martin says there is a concept within the DMCA and EUCD known
as "safe harbor" which protects small websites from being responsible
if its members post a copyrighted image. At least that's my
understanding, based on the research I did about it. I might not have
paraphrased it technically correctly.
So should we go with the "it's not our job /we're not lawyers"
position? Or should we be a little bit pro-active for blatant
copyright issues. If we want to be a little bit proactive, I'm
thinking we should also set some parameters about that. Or at least
clearly state our policy.
Fyi, this is what the current CoC says about it "Art must be
your own original creation or derived from artwork available under an
open licence. We cannot accept submissions that infringe copyrights."
Personally, since Inkscape is an artist's tool (among many
other uses), I think the community should be a little proactive about
protecting copyrights and/or licenses. But I also think that if it
requires a long and complex discussion, or detailed changes to the
CoC, then falling back to "it's not our job" might be reasonable. But
if that's the case, then the CoC isn't properly stating our position,
and perhaps should be edited.
Thanks for any thoughts or comments you might have about these things.
All best,
brynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
brynn
2017-07-18 10:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Ryan. Those ideas sound good to me. We'll see what others might have to
say.

I think it has been noted in the past that it's hard to find a way to contact a
webmaster or website representative. I know I've had more than one message sent
to me via Inkscape Community (forum), because they couldn't find a way to
contact the website.

It seems to me something was done about that, but I don't remember exactly what.
I don't readily see a contact link though.

I'm off to catch some sleep.

Thanks again :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Gorley
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:04 PM
To: inkscape-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] gallery moderation, fan art, and copyright



Hi Brynn,
That definition of "fan art" seems appropriate to me.

I think how DeviantArt handles issues of copyright is probably a good starting
point: http://about.deviantart.com/policy/copyright/

The key takeaways from my speed reading is that we probably need to do better
educating users of the liability of distributing copyrighted material. We also
need to publish a DMCA takedown form, and a complaint mailing address. It's
worth a closer read, but I do think we should probably be proactive.




Ryan Gorley @ Dijt

On 07/17/2017 09:47 PM, brynn wrote:
Hi Friends,
Another moderation question has come up (mostly just for me), which is
about how we want to define "fan art". Most (if not all) of the moderators
think fan art should be allowed in the gallery. But I think it might be a good
idea to have some parameters about it, and so I'm hoping the community can offer
their thoughts about it.

For a starting point and example, I'm totally ok with the Wikipedia
defintion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_art) :

"Fan art, or fanart, are artworks created by fans of a work of fiction
(generally visual media such as comics, film, television shows, or video games)
and derived from a series character or other aspect of that work."

Does anyone think it should be expanded or restricted in scope, from
there? Or should the description be more or less detailed or specific?


A separate but related question is whether we want to bother with
copyright issues, or leave it up to the license holder whether they want the
image removed. For example, if someone reproduces a Pepsi or Coke logo. Or I
remember a popular AI tutorial a few years ago, about how to draw the Chevy
logo, which I always wondered whether it was a copyright violation. Those don't
particularly seem to be fan art, at least not by the wikipedia
definition....unless maybe television commercials are considered fiction.

Martin says there is a concept within the DMCA and EUCD known as "safe
harbor" which protects small websites from being responsible if its members post
a copyrighted image. At least that's my understanding, based on the research I
did about it. I might not have paraphrased it technically correctly.

So should we go with the "it's not our job /we're not lawyers" position?
Or should we be a little bit pro-active for blatant copyright issues. If we
want to be a little bit proactive, I'm thinking we should also set some
parameters about that. Or at least clearly state our policy.

Fyi, this is what the current CoC says about it "Art must be your own
original creation or derived from artwork available under an open licence. We
cannot accept submissions that infringe copyrights."

Personally, since Inkscape is an artist's tool (among many other uses), I
think the community should be a little proactive about protecting copyrights
and/or licenses. But I also think that if it requires a long and complex
discussion, or detailed changes to the CoC, then falling back to "it's not our
job" might be reasonable. But if that's the case, then the CoC isn't properly
stating our position, and perhaps should be edited.

Thanks for any thoughts or comments you might have about these things.

All best,
brynn



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
Inkscape-***@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot





_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
Inkscape-***@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Martin Owens
2017-07-18 13:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by brynn
I think it has been noted in the past that it's hard to find a way to
contact a webmaster or website representative.  I know I've had more
than one message sent to me via Inkscape Community (forum), because
they couldn't find a way to contact the website.
As a counter point. As the webmaster I have to field support requests
for Inkscape quite often already. As an individual, I'm not Inkscape's
consumer support department and widening the contact link would lead to
even more requests from well meaning but demanding users who I have to
politely redirect to the community support links.

Part of the job of the moderation team is to spread the load and stop
the need for any one central webmaster for moderation decisions. So we
don't have a bus-factor of one for things like copyright violations.

As the webmaster I will:

 * Keep web server functioning (and report when it's not)
 * Deploy new versions of the website's code
 * Investigate ways to improve the website's infrastructure

I won't:

 * Deal with copyright issues (see moderation team)
 * Deal with content issues (see editors team)
 * Be a support contact (see community links)

But as you know, I'm in all of those other teams anyway. I just don't
want the webmaster email address to be a lightning rod, because that's
not fair on users who will be wasting their time emailing me via that
link.

Best Regards, Martin Owens
Ryan Gorley
2017-07-18 15:43:33 UTC
Permalink
For the good reasons stated here by Martin I would probably limit DMCA
takedown requests to an online form aor perhaps /just/ a mailing address
(so long as we get notice of it). Still if someone jams a support
question into a form clearly for legal purposes I don't think they
should have too high of an expectation of receiving a response. I don't
know if such requests typically require a response, but it seems like
something the moderating team could handle within their normal workflow.
Just my $0.02.
Post by Martin Owens
Post by brynn
I think it has been noted in the past that it's hard to find a way to
contact a webmaster or website representative. I know I've had more
than one message sent to me via Inkscape Community (forum), because
they couldn't find a way to contact the website.
As a counter point. As the webmaster I have to field support requests
for Inkscape quite often already. As an individual, I'm not Inkscape's
consumer support department and widening the contact link would lead to
even more requests from well meaning but demanding users who I have to
politely redirect to the community support links.
Part of the job of the moderation team is to spread the load and stop
the need for any one central webmaster for moderation decisions. So we
don't have a bus-factor of one for things like copyright violations.
* Keep web server functioning (and report when it's not)
* Deploy new versions of the website's code
* Investigate ways to improve the website's infrastructure
* Deal with copyright issues (see moderation team)
* Deal with content issues (see editors team)
* Be a support contact (see community links)
But as you know, I'm in all of those other teams anyway. I just don't
want the webmaster email address to be a lightning rod, because that's
not fair on users who will be wasting their time emailing me via that
link.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
Tobias Ellinghaus
2017-07-18 15:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Owens
Post by brynn
I think it has been noted in the past that it's hard to find a way to
contact a webmaster or website representative. I know I've had more
than one message sent to me via Inkscape Community (forum), because
they couldn't find a way to contact the website.
As a counter point. As the webmaster I have to field support requests
for Inkscape quite often already. As an individual, I'm not Inkscape's
consumer support department and widening the contact link would lead to
even more requests from well meaning but demanding users who I have to
politely redirect to the community support links.
Thing is, even after looking for a few minutes I couldn't find any contact link
on the website whatsoever. The menus at the top are where at least I would
have expected some contact link but there is none.

Slightly off-topic: while clicking around the site I found the "inkscape-cvs"
mailing list which is supposed to have SVN commit logs. It feels odd to see
two VCSs being mentioend that are both not used any more.

[...]
Post by Martin Owens
Best Regards, Martin Owens
Tobias
C R
2017-07-18 16:02:14 UTC
Permalink
I'd keep it light on the copyright wording and options as well. I agree
with Martin, we don't really have the resources to handle copyright
squabbles. If someone informs us of copyright material they own that's
hosted on our site, writing a plain English request to us should be
sufficient I think. Have we ever had that happen anyway? The more legal
stuff we say the more questions we will get about it, and all of us are
grasping in the dark, guessing on the issues with our own (c). To do this
right, we would need lawyers. So I think let's not do it, and not make it
sound at all like we do it at all.
Post by Tobias Ellinghaus
Post by Martin Owens
Post by brynn
I think it has been noted in the past that it's hard to find a way to
contact a webmaster or website representative. I know I've had more
than one message sent to me via Inkscape Community (forum), because
they couldn't find a way to contact the website.
As a counter point. As the webmaster I have to field support requests
for Inkscape quite often already. As an individual, I'm not Inkscape's
consumer support department and widening the contact link would lead to
even more requests from well meaning but demanding users who I have to
politely redirect to the community support links.
Thing is, even after looking for a few minutes I couldn't find any contact link
on the website whatsoever. The menus at the top are where at least I would
have expected some contact link but there is none.
Slightly off-topic: while clicking around the site I found the
"inkscape-cvs"
mailing list which is supposed to have SVN commit logs. It feels odd to see
two VCSs being mentioend that are both not used any more.
[...]
Post by Martin Owens
Best Regards, Martin Owens
Tobias
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Ryan Gorley
2017-07-18 16:53:44 UTC
Permalink
I'd agree with keeping it light on the legal explanation. Better to
point elsewhere for that, frankly.

Right now when someone uploads a resource they have the option to select
"No Permission". Is there any instance where we want people uploading
items for which they have neither ownership or permission? That seems
problematic and should either be removed or allowed with a clear warning
of the potential consequences.

If we do nothing, the only recourse for a claimant to email the
mysterious gandi-contact at sfconservancy.org found on the domain
registration. Hopefully someone at SFC would see that and let us know,
otherwise it would probably get pushed up the ladder to OSUOSL based
upon the IP address, in which case they could just shut the server down
to protect their own behinds. Having some means to lodge a complaint
just mitigates that risk. A simple form with name, organization,
address, phone, email, material hyperlink, and description, seems like
it would put up too high of a barrier to be abused for support
questions, but not be too much heartache for a legitimate claimant to
complete.
Post by C R
I'd keep it light on the copyright wording and options as well. I
agree with Martin, we don't really have the resources to handle
copyright squabbles. If someone informs us of copyright material they
own that's hosted on our site, writing a plain English request to us
should be sufficient I think. Have we ever had that happen anyway? The
more legal stuff we say the more questions we will get about it, and
all of us are grasping in the dark, guessing on the issues with our
own (c). To do this right, we would need lawyers. So I think let's not
do it, and not make it sound at all like we do it at all.
Post by Martin Owens
Post by brynn
I think it has been noted in the past that it's hard to find a
way to
Post by Martin Owens
Post by brynn
contact a webmaster or website representative. I know I've
had more
Post by Martin Owens
Post by brynn
than one message sent to me via Inkscape Community (forum),
because
Post by Martin Owens
Post by brynn
th