File talk:On-pc-height comparison chart by Ziphoblat.jpg

DeletionEdit

The usefulness of this image should be evident, regardless of how it looks as a thumbnail. I've asked the uploader if permission was given to host the image here, but attribution is provided right there on the image: it was made by "Ziphoblat" and was originally uploaded here. It will be an simple matter of linking back to that thread if no direct permission was given. —Legoless (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If the creator doesn't give permission it can't be used, permission isn't a flexible issue determinable by whether an image can be used or not. The image is almost useless for us, it cannot be displayed usefully on a page, which is usually the sole reason an image exists. If it can be used in some other way (after permission has been attained/confirmed) then it can stay. Also, this image can be recreated by someone else, which should be encouraged so that there isn't any attribution directly on the image. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Permission is required for copyrighted files. For something like this, attribution to ZeniMax and the original creator will do, i.e. the exact equivalent of the license we use on all of our UESP-created images and expect other sites to follow when using our content. The image is a chart and needs to be clicked into to be used, it's not for illustrating an article. We don't delete something like this just because it's a shoddy thumbnail. Naturally a UESP-created chart would be preferred as always, but it's hardly the first time we've had to rely on third party images. I've contacted the creator directly out of courtesy, but that's all that permission is in this circumstance: a common courtesy. —Legoless (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Really, your ineptitude about copyright laws is showing again. Please take more care in your arguments before posting too, its a waste of my time to have to continually rip them apart with the truth. Any images we host allow the image taker to retain license on the composition, meaning we need permission from the creator to host it. The image you linked is not used as a thumbnail, it is enhanced to a size that is useful, and that enhanced size is following a standard image size on similar pages (in case you try to counter-argue about exceptions). Have you got any arguments about it being useful, or is your sole objection to its deletion based on 'self-evident observation' in the circumstance that it was put up for deletion because it wasn't useful, thereby removing any claim to evident usefulness? To combat plagiarism, we used to have a strong opposition to any and all forms, unless in all your wisdom we now allow it based on how useful it is to us. Please do reply if I have misunderstood your support of plagiarized images. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 22:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Silencer, for your sake, I would calm down and not get heated over this. If you don't think you're getting heated, well, that's how you're coming across. As for the image, I don't know whether the license would be the exact same standard UESP User Generated one, but I say that we do need permission from the author before we could possibly use the thumbnail for anything. •WoahBro^►talk 22:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Always me isn't it, its not the admins inadequate knowledge on serious administrative issues that needs commented on, its the person who questions why an admin has such a lack of knowledge? Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 22:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The assets belong to ZeniMax Media Inc, and no derivative copyleft licence we apply to them would stand in a court of law. ZeniMax allows images of its games to be published and hosted, but ultimately retain ownership of said images. As such, the screenshots and edited lines used to compose this image are not original work and cannot be copyrighted by the author. We have just as much legal right to host this image as any other ESO screenshot, which is to say none. We are under no legal obligation to offer attribution to or obtain permission from the author. The only reason to do so is, as I said, common courtesy, and until such time as the author objects to our hosting of it, it will remain here.

As for usefulness, the image needs to be clicked into to be viewed, since the unfortunate width is required for an accurate comparison of heights. If the 'self-evident observation' really needs to be pointed out, the maximum and minimum racial heights in ESO is important both for character customization (a very important aspect in MMOs) and for min-maxing in PvP, since a smaller character means a harder time locking on to an opponent.

And finally, just to clarify: I'm not suggesting we use our UESP licence here. The current one is correct. —Legoless (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism isn't excusable or acceptable. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 23:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about copyright laws, but I think Silencer is right. While Zenimax hold the original copyright for the content within the image, the composition of the image itself belongs to that image creator, not Zenimax. We had a similar issue at Fable Wiki, where a crown icon, whose assets are entirely owned by Lionhead (as it's the same crown as in the Fable III box art) was removed by Wikia for copyright violation because the image itself was created by a third party and not Lionhead. While Lionhead could conceivably file a copyright claim against that third party artist for use of assets, it was us at Fable Wiki who were in the wrong because we attributed it to Lionhead when it wasn't their image. By comparison, we would need the permission of the creator of this composition to upload it, as I don't think we can claim Fair Use through the ZeniMax license. --Enodoc (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the composition of an image containing copyright assets can claim to be derivative work, nor do I believe this falls into what the wiki would usually consider to be plagiarism (such as the copying of an article). Creating an outline/icon based on a game asset could arguably be transformative enough to be protected by copyright, but a screenshot of a video game usually isn't (for example, see how Wikipedia handles it). If people really are so passionate about not hosting this at all without express permission, we can of course delete it, but using a legal argument to do so is not accurate and I feel it would set a bad precedent. —Legoless (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(←) To comment on the usefulness of the image, I just don't really see how this file will ever be successfully used on a wiki page. Because of the image's size/resolution, it looks terrible on an article no matter how you attempt to present it. Also, although height wasn't quite as variable as it is in ESO, the races in Skyrim had varying heights as well and (as far as I know) we don't have any height comparison images like the file in question here. Instead, the numerical information for all the heights is listed in a table on Skyrim:Races. If there's numerical information like this in the ESO game data, I think this would be the way to go for documenting the differences in height, adding the minimum and maximum height for each race. Even if there isn't though, most people probably only really care about what race is the shortest and which is the tallest so an image showing this level of detail may not be overly necessary or desired. For the PvP argument, people are only going to be interested in what race is the shortest if they are truly concerned about using height to gain an advantage in combat. Forfeit (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no scale data available I don't think, but the min/max heights could certainly be ranked with text as a pretty simple compromise. —Legoless (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the image due to its questionable copyright (we've never accepted third party images without express permission before), its doubtful value to the project, and the ease of creating an image similar to this one that we could use without any question. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, have to emphasise: the copyright here isn't the issue. —Legoless (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if that wasn't my issue with it, I'd still prefer to keep things like this in house, we don't use other people's images when we can avoid it, and if it is necessary, creating a similar image that we can use without any doubt is simple enough. It is much easier and better to keep our foot down on having images taken from non-members then it is too open up the floodgates to them being allowable. And to look at this from another angle, the majority of the users here have expressed that they would prefer the image to not be on the site. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The question of copyright for something like this is extremely murky, and even legal experts have thrown the ball around a few times without a clear decision that I'm aware of. As AKB says, though, if we do decide we need something like this, it's easy enough to create one of our own and avoid all question. Regardless of that, The Silencer's response to the issue was entirely inappropriate, and at least as far as I'm concerned, his block stands, regardless of whether he was right or wrong about the issue itself. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 15:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(←) The author has given permission, for those who are curious. —Legoless (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)