Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-28172979-20170714201930/@comment-24947676-20170715140400

SnapaiKun wrote: CrystaltheCool wrote:

SnapaiKun wrote:

CrystaltheCool wrote:

SnapaiKun wrote:

CrystaltheCool wrote: Why the fuck are you doing "@Person" instead of quoting like a normal person? Weirdo.

Also, what you're saying isn't completely true. Our work falls under the CC-BY-SA license - although you can do whatever you want with our work, legally speaking you MUST GIVE CREDIT.

Just linking to the Useful Portrait Stuff page doesn't count as proper crediting, as it's too broad. You aren't going to use a part from every user who contributed to the page, are you? Which means if you just credit the page, although you technically end up crediting the correct people, you also credit people who didn't have any involvement.

Thus, it's simpler to just credit the users who made the parts you used as you make the portrait. But maybe it's too hard because Amino is a crappy mobile-exclusive service (also, fuck mobile-exclusive services - desktop is better in every conceivable way), I don't know, I don't use Amino.

However, as a desktop user, crediting the users as you go along is SO EASY YOU CAN DO IT WITH YOUR EYES CLOSED as long as you keep your credits in a txt file (these can be created through apps like notepad) and keep it open for use as you go. Obviously the exact means for this aren't available on mobile, but they probably have something similar.

Point is, it's not hard to credit the creators of the parts you use at all, and just crediting an entire wiki or page is completely lazy and credits mostly the wrong people (though the right ones are credited too) in the process. I wasn't sure how quoting worked honestly. I figured it out now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Just look at it. Please. It doesn't matter if it's copyrighted, creative commons, etc; Fair Use exists.

Since you don't even use Amino, I don't see why you are trying to argue with me; you don't even know how it works. You don't know if it's "crappy" or not.

It's also easier for Amino members to link the Useful Portrait Stuff page because of the fact everyone is already credited on there. Even people's names are under the images of the pieces needing to be credited. But no one thought about that either, apparently. You're missing the point - even if all the credits are on the page, by just crediting AN ENTIRE PAGE AND/OR WIKI, you're also crediting people who made parts that you didn't use (or, in the case of crediting an entire wiki, people who don't even make portraits are credited too) - thus, it is too broad. It's more accurate to credit the users who made the parts, rather than an entire community. Im a way, isn't that technically better? You're crediting those people, as well as providing a resource for people to use other parts as well. It may be to broad, but it's still getting the job done.

And once more, we technically don't even have to credit you because of Fair Use. The fact we even credit the page should suffice. I'll briefly analyze your third point, since we won't get anywhere if I don't.

Fair Use is when someone takes "excerpts of Copyright" may be quoted verbatim (unchanged) for the use of teaching, criticism, and research without the need to request payment form the Copyright owner. Any work posted by another member is under Fair Use as long as the following apply: Both factors have been met, as no profit is being gained and the uniqueness of each portrait changes the meaning. Although the second point has definitely been met, the first point being met is... Debatable, to say the least.
 * The Meaning is Changed (the purpose and character of your use)
 * No monotization is being gained

Fanon wiki users create the structure of the parts, such as hair parts (which are in monochrome), and in the case of uniforms and face parts, the coloring is often done by the wiki users as well. So that leaves us with the hair - the hair is often colored in monochrome, leaving the coloring to whoever uses the part.

So, in conclusion, it seems like all that those who use the parts really do when it comes to portrait-making is...
 * Putting the parts together.
 * Coloring the hair (and maybe the eyes).

Now, I don't know much about portrait-making, but that sounds like very little work compared to the time it takes to actually make the parts. But again, I know very little about portrait making, so I'm gonna let someone who contributes to the UPS page (i guarantee someone who contributes to the page is lurking in the thread) argue over that one.

Ultimately, the end result is usually a mish-mash of various parts with recolored hair parts. That doesn't sound "unique" or "original", as all of it is derived from other peoples' work. ALL. OF. IT.

Thus, I believe that crediting is mandatory, as very little of it (if any) is truly original.

Also, you said that fair use applies if the use of the work is for the purposes of "teaching, criticism, and research" - however, the way the parts are used is specifically to create portraits with them - not to criticize the parts, not to teach how to make them, and I don't see how one can "research the parts". Of course, creating portraits with the parts is exactly how they're intended to be used - so I have to wonder if this follows under fair use if they're used exactly how they're supposed to be used, which doesn't seem to fall under your definition of the term.

Your point? This doesn't refute anything - although the image does state that the topics you mentioned aren't the only ones what qualify as fair use (which you didn't mention in your third point, although it's definitely worth mentioning), it doesn't mention any topics that would actually be relevant to creating art from other art (which is what portrait making is), so it's not particularly relevant.