Forum:License options for photomanipulations

Hello there, folks. I've done some searching and haven't found an answer for this, so I've come seeking your advice. Given that we're being asked for licensing information for new image uploads, I was wondering how to handle photomanipulations or composite images? It's something common in many fandom-oriented wikis, like Star Trek Expanded Universe, or SW Fanon. How does one attribute that? Is it covered under the template? Or should there be a new option saying something like "this image has been compiled by  from two or more images under copyright to multiple sources."? Photomanipulations, in a legal sense, are generally considered parodies. --TimPendragon 09:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm an administrator of Star Wars Fanon, so I can only speak for that wiki. On Star Wars Fanon, we prefer the "this image has been compiled by  from two or more images under copyright to multiple sources" option that you've stated. We would also like you to state what those "multiple sources" are. In addition, the SW Fanon community wouldn't want their images to be called "parodies" as SW Fanon has been trying to build a more serious outlook for fanon wikis for a while now. What other wikis do is up to them, and I hope Wikia respects our desires to create our own policies concerning images; nearly two years of work keeping images sourced and licensed on SW Fanon would be overridden if Wikia states otherwise. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 13:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, Michael. When I said "in a legal sense, they're considered parodies," I meant just that, not as any kind of slight. An image of Pierce Brosnan as a Starfleet Captain, or Jason Statham as a Jedi Knight is of course taken seriously by those creating the images, and reading the associated stories or RPGs. But photomanips of this nature are basically in the same gray area of legality as fanfic - applying the blanket term "parody image" to all photomanipulations avoids those legal considerations. Believe me, STEU takes itself just as seriously as SW fanon, perhaps even more so now that we have Memory Gamma to contend with. --TimPendragon 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Licences boxes can be added as desired by any sysop by editing MediaWiki:Licenses. You can see a few exemples there : c:fr.3d:MediaWiki:Licenses, c:fr.guildwars:MediaWiki:Licenses. — TulipVorlax 20:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tulip. I'll work with STEU's other sysops and set it up. --TimPendragon 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason this is a legal gray area is because parody application of content is considered a form of "fair-use" in copyright law. Some countries don't permit this sort of activity, or at least the reasons for using content in this fashion is much more heavily regulated and controlled than it is in the USA. This is also a derivative copyright issue here, as you are using existing copyrighted content. In the case of a famous actor wearing a Star Wars costume, more than one copyrighted image is likely being used and at least the costume itself is copyrighted as well even if you "own" the costume.

If you are going to label images of this nature and want to show their licenses, it should be a notation that you are using them under fair-use doctrine purposes. Fair-dealing is the term sometimes used in European countries for a similar concept. This is a very sticky area that some wiki users try to avoid altogether by banning fair-use completely, and is a hotly debated topic on Wikipedia for when fair-use ought to be used or not used.

I should note that in spite of being mostly legal to make images like this, there have been lawsuits by several companies when their products or corporate leaders have been seemingly portrayed in a negative manner or in a way they don't like. MAD magazine is one publication that has been a repeated target of these kind of lawsuits... where ultimately the parody image was ruled to be used legally under fair-use doctrine. That still doesn't mean you will be immune to lawsuits or legal challenges to the content even if the images are legal. George Lucas tends to like and encourage parodies of his content, so you are likely to be safe with Star Wars content like this. Paramount Pictures, on the other hand, tends to be very heavy handed with fan websites and anally protective of its "intellectual property", and has tried to shut down fan websites that weren't explicitly approved or developed by Paramount. Just be aware of who you are dealing with if you want to claim fair use. --Robert Horning 10:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, Robert, although Paramount hasn't gone on an anti-fandom spree since the mid-90s, and their agreement with the fan film crews to allow such things to exist as long as no profit is made clearly shows a change in their attitude from the days of cease and desist letters to fan website owners. In any case, the best option appears to be a license that credits the photomanip's creator (be it the uploader or someone from whom they have permission), the acknowledgment that the image is a composite of copyrighted material, and that it falls under fair use. --TimPendragon 18:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)