Please, whenever you upload a new image, be sure to follow these three simple steps:
1) Be sure the image name acts in accordance with our site's Naming Conventions.
2) Once the image is uploaded, please don't forget licensing.
If you uploaded it through the Special:Upload function, make use of the "Licensing (Required)" dropdown feature before clicking "Upload File," so it can be legally displayed on the wiki.
If you uploaded it through the "Add a photo to this gallery" function on the bottom of galleries, or you didn't select any licensing option in the dropdown feature of Special:Upload, you'll have to add the licensing manually. Go to the uploaded image and click "Edit," you'll see two rows of buttons to insert templates or format functions. Click on the button that has a single polaroid photograph on it (found in the bottom row), and the template will be added. Be sure to fill in the "License" field with the respective license. Most common licenses are "Comic Single Panel," "Comic Cover," "TV Screenshot" and "Movie Screenshot." If the licensing you added is not valid, the image will still appear as unlicensed.
3) Whether the image template with licensing has been added automatically or has been inserted manually on the image, please be sure to fill in the respective fields there are, including "Source," "Universe," "Subject#," etc. to help sort it out.
Why did you create a disambig page for SSM. To my knowledge, that is not a widely used acronym on the site, certainly not enough to warrant a disambig page.
Matt Fraction's Iron Man series isn't "Invincible Iron Man Vol 2" because although since 1968 the first volume used it a lot in the cover, it wasn't the official title (it was listed as simply "Iron Man" in the indicia).
Hm... but in spite the Indicia difference, it picks up the old numbering, so maybe it was trying to correct an oversight of the non-inclusion of Invincible in first 4 volumes? Then of course volume 5 ignored that...
Although it has a different indicia title, it's Iron Man's main series. I don't think it was to correct anything, as other titles have also used some different indicia title to the one in the cover (the X-Men series had the cover title "Uncanny X-Men" for a long time, and Avengers used the cover title "Mighty Avengers" for some time).
Let's be straight here. You and I both know that every last one of the Molly Hayes fan art pictures that you just uploaded are taken directly from the Molly Hayes list on Paheal's Rule 34 site. And putting aside the fact that that not only violates the fan art rule (since it is not your own work, and it's very unlikely the you recieved varifiable permission from each and every one of those different artists), and that taking those photos from Paheal without permission violates the copyright rule, that fact that you're using pornographic fan art (cropped or otherwise) on a family-friendly site is far from acceptable.
I'll be reporting all you and all the violating images to an admin. Rule 34 is a great thing, but keep it in the appropriate place.
Paheal's just a distributor, they haven't copyrighted the images, and I don't concur to label the (admittedly erotic) art with that adjective, especially if anything which might incur it is obscured or removed. That label's got specious etymological roots.
That said, I wasn't aware we could only add our own art, (the link on the page just said fan art) but reading into the blue text at the top of the page, I can see I didn't read closely enough to notice that detail. I had thought that the file names (all having "by NAME") attributed it well enough.
Were the known artists (some are unfortunately unknown) contacted and gave permission for their work to be used here, would it then be possible to convey it in the cropped format?
I think it's pretty clear that regardless of the subject material, these artists are fans and quite talented illustrators, as long as it is made tasteful enough for Wikia policies isn't it worth conveying their talents?
Consider for example: w:c:dc:Sex/Gallery. The marvel wikia doesn't have a similar page as far as I'm aware, so are policies more conservative here in regards to that subject matter? Considering an admin's icon it appears that some level of ero's allowed. The images on molly's gallery just featured her alone, surely kissing Jean while paying at her hamstrnigs more 'pornographic' than that. =P
"Copying from another site" is the wording for a yearlong ban, didn't really expect anything that extreme. I'm pretty sure a lot of people nab comics images from other sites before uploading them here, so I assume this refers to nabbing fan art from other sites being bad? I admit my ignorance that it had to be my own work and apologize for this. In the future I'll limit what I submit for fan art as that which I create myself (though it won't be very high quality, I suck).
It's possible the art I added could be approved of submission by their creators though (though not possible in the case of the anon art I guess unless I somehow figure out who made it) so I will seek out their permission in case they might choose to add some themself.
If partial artistic works aren't acceptable, perhaps they might create unique ones. I personally think that they were adequately cropped to be completely unobjectionable in comparison to some of the things Marvel's shown in the books or on other Wikia projects.
1) If an artist consents, and you can show that they did, their work can be uploaded. However, I doubt many artists would consent to censored versions of their work to be shared.
2) The DC page you mention is dedicated to images that were actual panels in DC comics, not fan art made by non-DC artists.
3) There is nothing against sensuality here (as many of the fan art galleries for popular female characters will show), but it's a different issue when the image features a skimpy outfit (Marvel-drawn Emma Frost dresses like a stripper on a daily basis) versus when the image features nudity or graphic sexual content (i.e. topless Molly Hayes).
4) I believe that the severity of the ban (given for a "first offense" with no warning) came from the fact that the original images you cropped were not only pornographic in nature, but depicted a character under the age of 18. Here in the U.S., that falls into a legal grey area, but it generally is considered a form of child pornography, whether intended or not.
You raise a few valid points, but I'm honestly not the one to talk to on this. Edkaufman is the one who blocked you, and any contest to the block, or discussion on the acceptance of "erotic" fan art should be brought up with him.
Hm, hard to do when I think one's limited to editing own talk page, may try mail function. You could be right about not liking censored versions, will have to get feedback about that.
I don't consider nudity, much less toplessness (seems to work for Spider-Man) to be pornographic, plus the files uploaded didn't depict the exposed areas people generally define the terms by. Would this also be a nude photo?
This seems related to the Mormon Bubble meme, where something is considered offensive even when it doesn't actually depict anything, simply due to the lack of implied clothing.
Prior to analyzing those shots, if you're able to take a look at them, there's some issues I need to look into first. This FAQ says Kitty turned 14 by Uncanny X-Men Vol 1 169 (~1983 or earlier) & 15 in Excalibur Vol 1 26 (1990).
So, seeing as how marvel depicted Shadowcat as they did during the FF crossover, I think it's a pretty comparable issue. There's convenient censorship with whisps of smoke, just as there's convenient censorship with cropping. TBH I think by comparison the official comic was a lot more revealing.
You have some good points again, but I'm gonna have to step back. I really think an admin should answer you're inquiries, since they'll know policy better than I. I'll leave a message on Edkaufman's wall and ask him to reply in this thread.
Hey there, as Spencer pointed out, the year-long ban was a preventive measure - and as such, pretty extreme, I realize that - not so much because of the plagiarism issue, otherwise I would have tried to talk to you first, but because of the child pornography issue. It's a legal issue - child pornography is the sort of thing (and yes, not only real child pornography, with real victims, drawings can be risky already) that gets homes raided, servers confiscated and websites taken down. I'm not going to err on the unsafe side even for a second.
As for the aesthetic/artistic/censorship debate: You're bringing up points well-rehearsed, but misplaced. Of course there is a certain paranoia about pornography in certain contexts that have - mostly in the US - caused discussions about the erotic nature of michelangelo's david, which any sane person must find laughable. And yes, there was even a very absurd debate in England about whether Allan Moore's Lost Girls was child pornography or not. That's not what's at stake here, and neither is posting images that have appeared in Marvel Comics.
The original images you have posted are pornographic in nature in the sense that obviously their main function is to excite sexually. That is made clear both by the context of the site from which you took them as well as the images itself. Can they still be considered art? Of course. But they don't belong on a children-friendly site. Not in a cropped version, not in a censored version. They just don't.
Your crediting the original artists was well meant, but it actually makes the problem worse. By giving the artists, you're giving an easy lead on how to find the original images, ergo giving any ten year-old kid on a computer without safety measures and who knows google a one-click ticket to pornoland. There's no way we can allow this. And, as you are very well aware, we cannot allow posting cropped versions without crediting the original artist for reasons well known.
The two from IWC... were actual panel cut-outs and required no cropping since Molly's fully clothed in them. In and of themselves I don't believe they had any 'function to excite' even if they were part of a collective work that had other scenes pages later that did.
Your objection about crediting authors for cropped work makes sense but in that case, would it mean if someone contributed clean fan-art to a wiki but had done erotic works elsewhere (on sites appropriate for it) that they'd be banned from the Wikia project? If Steve Ditko or Jack Kirby were ever discovered to have drawn something labelled as porn, should we either not credit them or ban depiction of their art on Spider-Man?
Or for that matter, using your example, having written the "smut in the UK" Lost Girls work, is it wrong to recommend Alan Moore's work in Marvel in case it leads people to read his erotic works in DC?
Speaking of the whole '"main function to excite sexuality" thing, it seems to be a subjective interpretation, since don't we often see prudes criticize certainfemaleclothingchoices using similar phrasing?
look, as much as I love a good political debate (and bashing prudes, for that matter), the issue isn't up for one. We both know what you did. And that is far from acceptable in several ways. The legal evaluation of whether some of the original images qualify as child pornography or not is not made by us - and it's too close for my taste and legal sense to take the risk.
Well yeah it's only hypothetical banter at this point, since now I know it's only ok to add self-made fanart. Will keep this in mind for summer 2013 when ban ends. Though I doubt art skills will improve. Still if IW were to add what was at File:MollyHayesByIW...T1.jpg or File:MollyHayesByIW...T2.jpg I think they should =/. The guy's clearly got some art talent regardless of where he takes it. The others were cropped & lower-tier in quality so it's less tragic they're lost. +y@talk 20:31, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
That's a whole different melody. We can talk about the ban, even though after talking to the other admins, they agree with me that when it comes to porn, it is best to err on the safe side. I can see you are a reasonable person and you understand where I'm coming from. So we have an understanding?
As for the artistic value of the fan art - I never questioned that. But it is as Spence said, som things should simply stay on the sites where they are.
Yeah TBH the whole process of adding images on the more extensive wikis is really complex so I think if something's missing one and I find it (like a comic cover or whatev) might run it by admin to make sure I don't mess up the licensing or naming scheme or whatever. It's easier just sticking to text.
There is a pretty precise document (somewhere) that can tell you how the naming conventions for images work. Probably GrnMarvl or Johhny are the best guys to ask.
I ask again: Do we have an agreement that you won't copy images from other websites without their permission?
that's overdoing it, besides, I'm not always around. Don't take them from other sites, and if you have anything self-made that you think might be too erotic, run it by me.
