Thread:SavageOpress1138/@comment-25898954-20170510232129/@comment-3528596-20170511002116

Yes, we've been running with that precedent for quite some time. However, some circumstances surrounding images have changed a little lately:


 * 1) As I've noted in several other places, the number of active users on the site has increased a lot in the last year. Along with that, the amount of image uploads has increased.
 * It feels to me as if the ratio of image uploads to users is also larger than it was before the Brandonian precedent, but I'll concede that's difficult to measure and could be a result of poor memory.
 * 1) I've noticed, largely due to Sak's bringing it to my attention, that a number of these images are clearly artistic in nature. That varies from computer generated to hand drawn, but either way, it's clearly creative work. Without sourcing/licensing, it's impossible to know if the uploader is also the creator, or if they've taken another person's work.
 * 2) Part of Sak's bad influence on me has been his emphasis on the fact that, as a site based on creative work, we're responsible for fostering an environment of appreciation and respect towards such work. To take another artist's image and use it without acknowledgement isn't in the spirit of what we should be standing for.
 * 3) While I appreciate the original Brandonian argument, especially for the revelation that Wikia/Star Wars Fanon isn't legally responsible for copyright claims, this was never one of the Brandonian rulings that I felt particularly strongly about either way. Laziness, or at least antipathy, on my part shouldn't outweigh the other arguments made her. Just because we aren't legally responsible for doing it doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it.
 * 4) It seems wrong to arbitrarily apply the image policy only to certain images. If we want to apply it to these images, we need to apply it equally.

That said, if you have an opinion on the matter, I'd love to hear it.