File talk:UAC.PNG

Deletion
No fanfic works. (This isn't specifically mentioned in the notability policy, but I think it's generally understood. Should we write it in?)


 * Delete.   Ryan W 06:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this image couldn't be used to clearly demonstrate/display the UAC logo (since we can't use raw textures for that purpose anyway). Also, do you think this should be deleted too, for example? -- Janizdreg 08:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Counterexample: we used a screen shot for the Tei Tenga graphic, which is even smaller. In the UAC case, we could include a Doom 3 screen shot also, for higher resolution.


 * I like Fredrik's drawing, but yes, strictly speaking we should replace it. Apart from the copyright problem, IMHO we should be especially vigilant about speculative edits in articles like that (they have only a tiny "canon" to work from, so it can easily get out of control).


 * Clarification: actually there is precedent for documenting fanfic (Hissy, Encyclopedia Daemonica), but those things were already notable within the community, not created for this site.   Ryan W 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: I don't really agree with the statement that "fanpics" shouldn't be used to illustrate articles, because it's like saying a dictionary or an encyclopedia is doing something wrong by hiring an artist to provide original drawings to illustrate the work. Besides, it's little different from submitting a photograph the contributor took, or making an original diagram to illustrate a process. Along with "public domain" works, original ones donated by authors are the main way to avoid using (other) copyrighted material that may not be convenient here. In fact, if such a picture can reasonably be used for the purpose at hand, using a screen shot of the game abuses "fair use" excuses because a more free alternative is available. I think that what matters is whether the illustration is truly illustrating and representing the UAC, and whether it may be infringing copyrights. I'd say the blue logo over black is illustrative, although the UAC in red isn't. Regardless, using an offshoot of the logo, a very specific design, could be interpreted as derivative of the original, and that's why I'm for the deletion. Actually, the Hissy-based logo is likewise apparently derivative (ironically, so is id's Cacodemon sprite). You know what I would do about the wiki logo? I'd ask id for permission for use in such a context, and I'd remove it if they were to discourage its use or demand unsuitable use restrictions. Who is like God? 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting &mdash; so you've turned my argument on its head. If I understand you, you're saying that Doomguy_Fredrik.png is more permissible than this image, because the Doomguy article has more original research, and because the drawing itself can reasonably be interpreted as a composite of the canon/fanon.  For this image, on the other hand, I am assuming until told otherwise that it is a simple end-run around the letter of the policy.  For example, you wouldn't create a meticulous hand-drawn reproduction of a Calvin &amp; Hobbes strip, and then upload it to wikipedia "because it isn't the original copyrighted work".


 * Asking id for an explicit statement would be unprecedented AFAIK, a stunning triumph of common sense over bureaucracy (if it worked); it would also be tickling a sleeping dragon. Your own standing in the Doom community far outstrips mine, so I would applaud you for starting such a project, but I would expect you to be reprimanded at every turn.  AFAICT, discussion of derivative works is actively suppressed on most sites, including Doomworld.    Ryan W 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as Fredrik's marine is concerned, the main thing is that, as drawn, it can be considered generic (a fighting man in military gear), whereas the cacodemon is something that appears only in Doom (or also in Jeff Easley's artwork, but that doesn't help the case). As for talking to id about the image, I'd do it only with some form of (strong) consensus here. Who is like God? 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)