2014-08-12 [Flisky]: The four line rule kind of cuts down on the whole copying lyrics and not putting the original artist.

2014-08-12 [Flisky]: Iunno. I like it.

2014-08-12 [wicked fae mage]: If the annoying rule is expanded upon, keep it? Like I believe there are rules against animations being in your house, but not on a wiki page.

And the screen shot of video games rules...we should come up with criteria for it? I mean, sure. If you created a world in Minecraft that is all your own, or even if you recreated Middle Earth all by yourself, that is kind of cool.

Idk about "this is my WoW character" being in a house though. I think Blizz would have to go really out of their way to want to find people who do that and throw a hissy fit over it.

The argument of it being your character is cut short because you may have chose their face and hair color, but artists other than you drew and created all possible combinations. And with Minecraft, while the same thing was done, a world is more impressive than a character.

(I realize I may not be helping as much as I thought)

2014-08-12 [hanhepi]: I do believe "copyright" is the reason behind several rules. The text rule for example. I don't know why we decided that 4 lines was our magical number, but I remember a discussion about copyright and the number of lines we would allow, rule came right after that.
That rule really should not apply to works in the public domain though. Which I think is why we put in the clause about "annoying" shit... just so no one was copy-pasting all of Moby Dick to their description. 

Screencaps from games was also a copyright thing, 98% sure.

Wikis and diaries have rules that are more lax. I don't remember the exact reasoning there, but I strongly oppose tightening those rules. 

2014-08-12 [windowframe]: I just... don't get this desire to police what other people can have in their house, just because you find some of it annoying. It's their house! Don't like it, don't look at it, don't read it. It's not like your obliged to read in full everyone's house or you get banned.

I think the animation annoyance rule initially had more to do with some people still being on broadband, and then going to someone's house that has animation on it slowed everything right the fuck down. How much of an issue is that any more? (and if it IS still an issue, that is how the rule should be phrased - not as if it's all about the personal preference of some clique.

As for wow characters: I know lots and lots of people who properly RP their wow characters. There's just as much thought and effort gone into that character as there is for a text-based RP on ET. But they're not allowed to show you a picture of their character, because they didn't draw it... because they're a writer, not an artist. And I don't think Blizzard would throw a hissy fit over it anyway. Just look at all the gaming news sites, blogs etc. that have screen caps from games. No one gives a shit. They only care if you're claiming it's yours (and even then, they probably won't care about some small fry with an ego) or if you're copying it to make your own game. And again, even then, most of them will care more about whether you're copying game dynamics than graphics.

I strongly oppose tightening any rule, anywhere. All bar theft need to be relaxed. X_x

2014-08-12 [Sunrose]: Loading time of houses with animations: this is also partly why there's an image limit on descriptions I think.

2014-08-12 [ally]: Blizzard only cares about its copyright if it loses moneys when it's infringed.

2014-08-12 [ally]: Loading time is still an issue when you're using tablets/phones.

2014-08-12 [Sunrose]: ET as a whole is a problem when using a phone. I didn't try the tablet. Anyway, this is off topic :P

2014-08-12 [Flisky]: ET loads okay on my phone, but it dies when I'm trying to edit anything. That's one of the reason I had to stop being a regular council person.

2014-08-13 [Skydancer]: My own opinion on a Photomanipulation. IF, all elements in the work are either the property of the one uploading the image, and / or, they are using elements which they have express permission to use from the copyright holder of those elements, such as stock photos, then it seems it would be certainly a natural form of work to be allowed. If however that is not the case, and there are any elements that are not in line with proper permission, content, ownership and / or proper credits to the elements included, then no, they should not be allowed.

2014-08-13 [Skydancer]: Game images which are copyright to a company in the degree that it is not fan art, but is a direct screen capture, or a screen capture has been included as part of a manipulated work, is in my opinion, something that should not be allowed. However, if the work is a creation of the individual in a virtual world, such as Second Life, then it is not a "game" as such, but rather is persistent world in which the content is user created, not preprogrammed and designed for hire by a gaming company. That should be allowed, as long as, credits for elements in the image which do not belong to the user, are included, and the primary elements are created by the person uploading the image.

2014-08-13 [Skydancer]: That being said. There are, in virtual worlds, situations where there are virtual photographers, fashion, landscapes, entertainment venues and pretty much anything you could find in real life, and virtual photography is a recognized art form in the virtual worlds. So, in theory at least, I believe it is technically the copyright of the person taking the virtual photograph, though, I do not believe the issue of the release of an avatars image by the user of that avatar has ever been discussed. I would not however be at all surprised if it had, I just have not heard of it happening yet.

2014-08-13 [Skydancer]: Presumably, some of what I said makes some kind of sense in some kind of context.

2014-08-13 [Sunrose]: So basically you can display it if you make proper credits and are free to use or at least used with permission?
The permission thing might be hard to enforce.

2014-08-13 [Mortified Penguin]: The only rule should be "don't be an asshole". But, of course, any rule changes should be run by and approved by [Hedda] first, otherwise I won't be considering them valid.

2014-08-13 [Sunrose]: Define asshole..I think you fit that bill at times :P

2014-08-13 [Stephen]: *snort*

The biggest issue with anything that we add a clause of "You can use provided you have the correct permissions" is that it's very difficult to enforce that as Sunny said, and even if we do we'd have to do a lot of legwork to make sure it's actually being done correctly.

2014-08-13 [Mortified Penguin]: Anyone who isn't me. So no, I seldom fit that bill!

2014-08-13 [Skydancer]: That is generally the way things are done in Deviant art, as long as you either own, or have the permission of the original stock providers which you use in the piece, and have followed the rules of the stock providers, since some have more restrictive rules than others, yes, you should be able to upload work that you have down as a photo manipulation. It does get a bit complicated with many different sets of rules by the stock providers but many of us that have a lot of stock have set up our rules to be pretty much similar. One of the big issues we run into are those people that rip images from sources they do not have the right to use and then submit that as stock. That can get sticky.

2014-08-13 [Skydancer]: And yes, I am fully aware of the issues of having a way to check that they have such permissions. A system has evolved on DA that helps a bit in that you are notified when one of your works is used or mentioned. And we as a community watch out for each other a lot. The DA staff as such does not enforce the rules, unless they are contacted with a complaint against a piece or an artist, then they will remove that image if they find that it contains material not allowed or they do not have the permissions to upload such in the first place.