Re: [Inkscape-devel] gallery moderation, fan art, and copyright

18 Jul 2017

      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 https://dijt.co
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-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel