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.

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