File talk:Portal-puzzle.svg

License

{{No license}}

Explanation to the above notice:

This image is a derivative work of File:Portal icon.svg / File:Portal.svg . Its obvious from looking at it, and the uploader states so himself at w:Template talk:Portal#Remove link from image, for accessibility. Problem is that File:Portal.svg uses the GFDL license (and some other similar licenses), so this image should also have such a license. Thus this image may not be released as public domain. And this image fails to attribute User:Pepetps who made File:Portal.svg.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I never stated that this is a derivative work, and it is not a derivative work in the sense of copyright law, as none of the elements that it shares with File:Portal.svg are protectible under copyright law. The mere idea of a blue puzzle piece with a keyhole is not protectible. If there is a valid concern about this (I don't think there is), please specify exactly which details are protectible and shared, and I'll change them. There is a valid license notice on the file page, with adequate information about copyright, so the {{No license}} template is inappropriate here. Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Note to whoever reads this: Eubulides removed that tag from the image description page and moved it to this talk page.

Eubulides: You even use the same shading, so it is very much a derivative work. The least you must do is to attribute the person who created that design. Anything else is rude. You removed the attribution and the copyright-problem-tag I put on that image. Since you are the uploader of that image you should not remove that tag, but instead wait for the admins here at Commons to investigate and decide what should be done with the image. We already know from the "work" you do at enwp that you couldn't care less about copyright and attribution. And now you have also shown that you couldn't care less about procedures and rules here at Commons.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I moved the tag here. I didn't see anything in the tag's output, or its documentation, that said the tag should not be moved. I moved the tag here after fixing all specific problems that I was notified of. If I did so incorrectly, my apologies: can you please point me to the documentation for the proper procedure here?
• "You even use the same shading". Not true. I didn't look at the shading of File:Portal icon.svg when I created this icon, and they use different shading. File:Portal icon.svg has highlights around the keyhole and near the top of the puzzle piece, whereas this icon uses a linear gradient from lower left to upper right. File:Portal icon.svg uses sharp-edged 3D drop-shading, whereas this icon uses a blurred 2D version: these are quite different effects, as one attempts to create the illusion of a sharply lit 3D object, and the other of a 2D object floating over a plane and being lit by a diffuse light source. The only thing that the two shadings have in common is that the light is over the viewer's right shoulder, and that is such a common thing that it's not protectible.
• All this being said, if you can suggest a change to the shading that would (in your opinion) remove this objection, please let me know. For example, how about if I make the light come over the viewer's left shoulder? Or if that's not enough, please specify what would be enough. I certainly don't want to give reasonable observers the impression that I'm trying to violate copyright: I'm not.
• "The least you must do is to attribute the person who created that design. Anything else is rude" I'll be happy to. Please tell me which person created the design. File:Portal icon.svg doesn't say. Once I know who made the design, I'll be happy to update the documentation accordingly (also, the documentation for File:Portal icon.svg, while I'm at it).
• "We already know from the "work" you do at enwp that you couldn't care less about copyright and attribution." That's not true: I care very much about doing this properly and by the book; otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to create this image in the first place. I suggest toning down the language a bit: the point of this icon is to improve Wikipedia's accessibility for the visually impaired, and it's better if we work together toward that goal rather than bicker over unimportant details about exactly which parts of a simple icon are copyrightable.

Eubulides (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously one can't use copyright law to prevent anyone else from publishing a blue puzzle piece with a keyhole. That being said, if someone can suggest specific changes to this image that would mitigate concerns about copyright infringement, I'd be happy to implement them. The goal of this image is not to play copyright games: it's to improve support for visually impaired readers. Eubulides (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)