Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:Attribution-Ubisoft

[edit]

Let me try it again; perhaps Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft was not clear enough.

  • Please read this dogma and repeat it over and over again to yourself until you internalized it: Screenshots of a proprietary game will never be released under a free license. NEVER. EVER. This is simply the truth. Get it, okay?
  1. The "release" was caused by an incompetent, misleading request and an incompetent, unauthorized answer. This license is at most a promo/press license.
  2. If the release were true, it would mean I could basically rip all the graphics, art, design etc. from any Ubisoft game and use it for my own game, then sell it. May I do this? No, I may not. I would be punished hard for such blatant copyright infringement. Hence, this is certainly not a free license.
  3. It is clear that such a significant release would have to be done by the company management. It would cost billions of dollars; Ubisoft would basically have given up all their copyrights on their games except for the game engine programs. That's ridiculous. Yes, it is.
  4. The "release" was done by a German subsidary, not by the actual copyright holder, which is a french company.

Any claim that anything from a proprietary game will ever be released under a free license is an illusion and wishful thinking at its worst. Help to fight templates on commons such as this one that came about by pure self-deception and please burn them at the stake. That's where they belong. --rtc 22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

« Screenshots of a proprietary game will never be released under a free license. NEVER. EVER. This is simply the truth. Get it, okay? » beginning with stupid comment like that dont help your demonstration. Let me show you Category:Abuse (computer game) (a copyrigted game released under free license), Category:Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 (a copyrigted game with some free screenshot), Category:Warzone 2100 (a copyrighted game release under free license). Never ever... owner do what he want. For the rest I am incompetent. ~ bayo or talk 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some well-known exceptions to each dogma and perhaps Abuse is partly one of them (only the shareware levels are in the public domain, if Crack Dot Com did not sign away copyright to publishers). But you know what I meant. About Category:Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 I am not so sure. This seems to be a case similar to this one and I don't believe this alleged permission for a second, especially not because it is not publicly viewable and testable. We need an independent litmus test for such alleged releases; someone must send an email asking, without referring to Commons, whether this screenshot can be used for the purposes I named. If the company replies with no, then it was never intended to be released under a free license and should be deleted. Anyone who rejects that such a litmus test should be done is afraid of the truth. --rtc 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to like strong wording, rtc. "NEVER. EVER" - well, this may be your personal dogma, but the fact is that owners of copyright are free to license their stuff as they see fit, and it is perfectly possible that some game copyright owners decide to release screenshots under a free license - at least of particular games, e.g. old ones they are no longer interested in and where they don't even care if people use "graphics, art, design etc." for their own commercial purposes. Why not, pray? It is possible. Well, but apart from this: you surely have a point - I do not think that it can be Ubisoft's intention that people can use their game art for any purpose. Your explanation is quite convincing and it seems that therefore the template and screenshots should be deleted. Gestumblindi 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The categorical demand a-la "I want to use their arts, characters and etc." (#3) is totally ridiculous. It's same demand like "I want permission for self construction of non-PD building, which is imaged on free photo, which was created using possibility of Freedom of panorama". Alex Spade 12:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support rtc´s point of view. The permission does not clearly say that Ubisoft wants there images to be open source. Furthermore, as rtc has already said, the permission didn´t came from the Ubisoft headquarter in France, but only from a subsidiary in Germany. So, the template and the screenshots must be deleted. Chaddy 03:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support rtc's point of view. Ubisoft Germany can not give a permisson for all Ubisoft products and i do not think that Ubiosoft knew what they did, when they gave the permission. So the permission was a wrong conclusion. --Jodo 15:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; certainly the Ubisoft person who gave the permission at least had a "use as screenshot only" kind of permission in mind, not what the current template says, "Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." As rtc points out, this would mean that you could e.g. take game characters from Ubisoft screenshots and make your own commercial game using these characters. This simply can't be the case! Gestumblindi 01:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No se hablar ingles... pero... la plantilla es totalmente valida para nosotros en la Wikipedia en Español, debe seguir, ya que es nesesaria para poder publicarlas sin Fair Use. ELQ
I do not understand the language but fair use is not allowed on commons --Jodo 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ELQ says this is the only way to have the screenshots in the spanish wikipedia... why are people always whining and bitching about "free" stuff?!?!?! that "everything must be 100% free!", not even wikipedia logos are free! well, I guess you think it's better to have no images at all, than to have some that may have restrictions... well, not even software under GNU GPL is 100% free, no it isn't! it has restrictions you know? like: you can't sell the software as you see fit... oh yes... besides, companies probably even like to see screenshots and stuff like that spread by the users... as long it is not abused... thats because of attitudes like this people fear free software/open source, some people make it seem "viral"... Make no mistake: no one in this world will ever be 100% free (in all senses)... 87.196.184.166 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don´t post nonsense if you don´t have the faintest idea. Chaddy 22:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep POINTy nom. I don't listen to someone shouting dogma at me. Also, ridiculous; the use of images does not mean I can rip a copy of the game offline with no punishment; how exactly can you rip all the graphics, art, et al from a screenshot? Look at it this way: don't you think Ubisoft would have noticed that we are freely using images on Wikimedia projects? --David Fuchs 20:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that every single image here must be fully free so that everyone can use it for every purpose, not only on Wikimedia projects. Chaddy 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ubisoft does not object to screenshots being used reasonably and freely, neither on Wikipedia nor anywhere else. However, that's far from a free license in the sense that commons requires and that Ubisoft can't and won't give us, for obvious reasons. It's not necessary that it's possible to "rip all the graphics, art" from a screenshot for it to be problematic; it's sufficient that it's possible to rip some of it, and that's true for any screenshot. --rtc 10:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The free license is for screenshots, not their software. rtc does not understand what he's talking about, a fact he makes all the more evident by his SHOUTING. --tjstrf talk 21:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you understand everything, don´t you? Chaddy 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand enough to recognize that the nominator's argument is about a completely different subject than what he's attempting to nominate. (Then again, the average 12 year old could probably figure that out.) --tjstrf talk 08:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither did I say, not did I suggest this to be about software rather than screenshots. There is no such thing as a free license for these screenshots, though. --rtc 10:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The permission was given by German subsidary office, not main office. So my vote is Delete, until such or new permission will have been given by main (French) Ubisoft office or (at the least) by US office. Alex Spade 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ubisoft are aware of the implications of a free license. This nomination is made on the premise that proprietary games will NEVER EVER release free use imagery. Pages such as Category:Ballistics (video game) prove this patently false. Yes, you can rip the textures from the Ballistics screenshots and use them in your game. Ubisoft are aware of the possibility of third party use of the screenshots, please see User:Avatar/Ubisoft. - Hahnchen 13:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop to repeat this nonsense and accept the basic fact that the template is dreamy rubbish. And please check your logic: Inferring a true conclusion from a false premise is perfectly valid, and a claim is not disproven by disproving a claim from which it has been inferred. This nomination is made on the simple fact that the template is invalid and ridiculous. --rtc 15:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the person who authorised the use of the screenshots knew, in contrast to the nominator, that a screenshot is a wholly different thing than a video game. There are no implications for the copyright status of any video game, because you cannot derive these from a screenshot. On the question of authorisation, that is not something Wikipedia is liable for if we were to be sued on this, which I doubt will happen. Krator 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem not to understand: the template says "Ubisoft, the copyright holder of this file, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that they are properly attributed." Any purpose would include e.g. extracting the game characters depicted in the screenshots and using them for your own video game. What you obviously have in mind, Krator, is a "use as unmodified screenshot only" kind of licence, and probably this is what the Ubisoft person had in mind, too, but it is not what the template in question says. According to the template, one could modify the screenshot and do whatever they like with the screenshot's content, as it would be rightly the case if using a truly free licence, but do you really presume that this was the intention of "Ubisoft"? The German mail correspondence excerpts given in User:Avatar/Ubisoft/OTRS_thread as basis for the "agreement" show that the responding Ubisoft employee didn't intend to give such a kind of permission. Gestumblindi 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. This is silly. There was a full debate last time, there have been German speakers here who have backed up the comments of the OTRS ticket. Please accept that we don't always get our way. giggy (:O) 23:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft_2&oldid=12316636"