Difference between revisions of "Talk:3D Models"
(just a thought)
|(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)|
|Line 44:||Line 44:|
[[User:Ptx|Ptx]] 16:56, 10 December 2007 (CET)
[[User:Ptx|Ptx]] 16:56, 10 December 2007 (CET)
Latest revision as of 18:12, 11 December 2007
Ptx: In response to your request for comments on your layout.
It's a good start, but I do have some comments. Also note that in wiki style, these things tend to evolve. It doesn't have to be perfect from the start.
I'm not sure whether it is necessary to include the license on this page, as it should be visible when they click on link to the media file itself anyhow. Also, with "BY-NC-SA 2.5" "Creative Commons" should be mentioned. Wikipedia has a whole list of copyright templates for marking media. We could really use a few of those ourselves here.
Also, for an overview page like this, including the exact time for the media is not very useful. We really need the space too, if we want to include a decent-sized picture and a description of more than a few words.
You added requirements for the filenames to the top of the article. I can imagine that these would be useful, but I'm wondering whether we should really try to regulate this this much. As long as it is a descriptive and identifying name, I would be happy. If the filename is "Broodhome-1.0-Ptx.zip", that's all we need to know, really. The time of upload is irrelevant, and whether it's a ship, actor, space debris, limpet, bullet, marine, planet, or whatever, should be pretty clear from the description anyhow. We can group them by kind on the page.
And we may want to link to external sources as well, for instance when we don't have the rights to redistribute the files here. You can't control the filename or the way it is packaged at all in that case.
And FYI, *nix has always handled spaces in filenames just fine (unlike Windows).
You are refering to "templates" in your descriptions; it would make sense to use actual MediaWiki Templates for this.
— SvdB 01:59, 8 December 2007 (CET)
- Totally agree regarding the license - no need to show the type in the table
- Including timestamp in the table - yeah i see your point, a unique identifier of the model (like a version number or timestamp) is available from the archive name.
- Regarding the file names: I'm not so sure about that. Mediawiki is not really designed for this kind of task, and organizing files would be messy w/o clear identification of the contents. In model-ship-pkunk_fury-dookie-20071207_0945.zip, we clearly state that it's a model of a pkunk fury ship that was created by dookie. The reason for the timestamp is to allow for multiple versions as well as multiple models (i.e. what if dookie creates 2 different earthling ship models?) .. Although it could be replaced by vN.N.
- Regarding "when we don't have the rights to redistribute the files here" - can you please elaborate? I'm not all that much familiar with licensing. In what cases wouldn't a model under UQM-content-similar license be prevented from being redistributed? I.e. what kind of license are we talking about?
- I know all too well about *nix and spaces in filenames =) But, having spaces in filenames can be an inconvenience.
- Also thanks for the pointer to the wiki templates!
— ptx 21:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)
- (re file names) All that is required is that the file names are unique and descriptive. Time stamps, version numbers, "-new", would all work. There really is no "organising" of files based on filenames in Mediawiki. Media get organised just like any page: by using categories. The master list is untransparant, whatever file name format you use. Less requirements means a lower threshold for people to contribute.
- As for rights, you must have permission from the right holders to distribute a file. If someone makes a model based on the SC2 images, both TFB and the creator of that model hold rights there. The model creator will need to have permission from TFB to distribute the files, but that does not have to come from the CC license that the UQM content is licensed is under. And a lot of old models predate UQM and its current content license. And even if someone violates a CC share-alike license by not distributing his/her files under the same CC license, that does not give us the right to pretend like it is licensed that way. And afaik, the copyright holder is the only one who can make a case against the violator. But ofcourse, IANAL.
— SvdB 18:05, 9 December 2007 (CET)
SvdB: Can you please elaborate on "The model creator will need to have permission from TFB to distribute the files, but that does not have to come from the CC license that the UQM content is licensed is under." I.e. if I make a model of a ship based on the SC2 images, what are the next steps? From what you are saying, it seems that I would have to contact TFB asking for permission to distribute the model files? I was under impression that anything goes as long as you don't attempt to make money from the SC2 content or derivative of it?
Ptx 16:56, 10 December 2007 (CET)
I was talking in general. To distribute something, you need permission from the copyright holders. If TFB have licensed some file under a Creative Commons license, that CC license is your permission, and you do not need to ask them specifically anymore. But there are fan-made 3D models out there which existed before the UQM project started, or before the content came under that CC license. If they had permission from TFB, that doesn't automatically mean that we have permission to use their derivative work. — SvdB 08:21, 11 December 2007 (CET)
- Just a thought - might it be worth having a page on this legal stuff? So Svdb / meep and others don't have to keep repeating what they do and do not know. I assume there isn't already one, otherwise there would have been a reference to it. It could have an incomplete or dubious tag to start off. --Zeracles 19:12, 11 December 2007 (CET)
Thanks for the info. What template should I use? I don't see CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5, only CC-BY-SA-2.5. Ptx 15:44, 11 December 2007 (CET)