[FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

rob_s · 2019-11-22 21:10:39

I suggest the creation of a new topic within forum Index page, to remind people of what is considered acceptable contributed content and behaviour towards others. This would also be the ideal place to inform users what type of images should be marked as inappropriate to make child friendly, as this information needs to be easily accessible so we are not repeating ourselves and is not buried within pages of posts. People should also be reminded this is not 4chan where anything goes, and that their is a 3 strike policy which we reserve the right enforce if needed.

We have one user who has so far ignored my request to revise his description to make it more useful to others, I have already pointed out, short or useful, relevant descriptions are preferred as the site attracts visitors from all over the world and long irrelevant descriptions are hard to follow or interpret, I have also suggested if they have something on their mind they wish to share, then the forum is the perfect place to air their views, not the image description, their response has so far been to further antagonize the situation.

Their latest image description, which they have placed on 3 recently submitted images is as follows:
I am not shy to say (and I hope it's ok to say) that I am a total Openclipart loyalist. But that site seems to be dead? So I am "testing the waters" so to speak by adding a few clipart here to share with the world over here on Freesvg. (I shared tons of clipart over the years on openclipart, many that are on this site now too, and so I might as well add some here I guess.)

This lady is a bit bored, and she has weird eyes. But she is watching what will happen to this site.

USER CAN POST WHAT THEY WANT NO? Why we policing descriptions? This is FREE SVG not "police state Svg" gosh what the heck.

I dont get the whole freaking out about what people write on here. If the user doesn't speak English, the more words the better practice they will get. One learns by trying. Words aren't scary.

__________________ In conclusion and to summarise
It should be stated this is an isolated incident, the majority of images this user has uploaded along with descriptions are exemplary, but guidelines are something the site should perhaps be implementing as user numbers increase.

j4p4n · 2019-11-23 01:18:32

Yo. I'm not trying to be antagonistic; this site simply has no comment or private message system so I was using the description for messaging. That said, I do feel like you are being a little bit condescending to non-native English speakers. We are not stupid people. Anyone can learn English, it's not like everyone only speaks 100 words. I enjoy making clipart as a hobby and making descriptions about whatever is on my mind. If you are going to have very strict rules about content, you should make that clear. Otherwise, enjoy more freedom. Gosh.

rob_s · 2019-11-23 11:04:31

J4p4n, I am glade you have found your way to the forum, and I would like to personally tell you we welcome your comments, I don't believe you would intentially cause mischief and you are correct, the site does need a messaging system so that we are not having to hack the description box for this purpose, this has just recently been suggested by user:liftarn https://forum.freesvg.org/viewtopic.php?id=79

I do not intend to condescend re non english language speakers but I do think my comments hold some weight, the site is new and does not yet have multilingual support, we understand people may be at different stages of progression with understanding english, and some may not know the language at all and have no desire to learn making it difficult to understand even a perfectly written description. The point I was trying to make is the site is open to everyone, this could be Non english speakers, those with visual impairment, learning disabilities, or young children all who may find long unnecessary description challenging.

The site does not enforce strick rules, but some guidelines are necessary to ensure the site stays a friendly welcoming place to all, I have taken a look at previous images you contributed and all had prefect descriptions, it's only the most recent 3 I think, which I why I felt it was necessary to raise an issue with.

I hope that you are not put off by this and understand we do genuinely appreciate your involvement and further contributions.

liftarn · 2019-11-27 15:28:57

Only vectors, no embedded bitmaps
No copyrighted images (probably includes derived art)
No trademarks/logos (possibly simple ones like word-marks and those that not reach threshold or originality

CyanideCupcake · 2019-11-28 01:08:57

Hi J4p4n, great to see you here on FreeSVG!

I agree with liftarn's three guidelines. Number 2, no copyrighted images should definitely extend to derived and fan art, since the copyright of the property still lies with the original creator.

We should also have rules around promoting personal agendas. I've especially noticed this being abused with old cliparts of political figures with tags such as "filthy capitalist" and "pig". The point of this site is to share clipart so it can be reused as many people as possible and trying to use it to support a specific cause is not what the site is for.

I personally think descriptions and tags should be as objective, specific and sterile as possible so clipart can be easily found by users.

liftarn · 2019-11-28 09:02:25

CyanideCupcake wrote:

Number 2, no copyrighted images should definitely extend to derived and fan art, since the copyright of the property still lies with the original creator.

It's not 100% clear where the line is. For instance we have https://freesvg.org/sorting-hat that is sort-of derived from Harry Potter.

CyanideCupcake wrote:

We should also have rules around promoting personal agendas. I've especially noticed this being abused with old cliparts of political figures with tags such as "filthy capitalist" and "pig". The point of this site is to share clipart so it can be reused as many people as possible and trying to use it to support a specific cause is not what the site is for.
I personally think descriptions and tags should be as objective, specific and sterile as possible so clipart can be easily found by users.

Yes, the tags and description should be as objective as possible. However that should not be the same thing as not allowing unflattering caricatures and such things.
If I search for "pig" I would expect to find images of pigs. If it's a caricature where a politician is pictured as a pig then such a tag would probably be valid.

rob_s · 2019-11-28 11:45:28

As liftarn has pointed out derivitive artwork could be a problem, for any object such as clothing I would say as long as the work is not a pixel perfect copy, and makes no claim to be associated with a copywrited material then I can't see there being a problem, but the repurposing of characters, trademarks or fonts without permission which are clearly protected by interlectual property laws could be a problem, if anyone knows a copywrite lawyer who can weigh in on the subject it woud be great to hear from them on this matter.

Tracing or vectorising of images should only be permitted for images that have been clearly placed in the public domain, or are no longer subject to copywrite, evidence should be provided in the description such as linking to the orginal, or referencing the original works.

As you might imagine, it would be extremely difficult to self regulate which is why there is a mechanism to report none CC0 images so that copywrite holders or anyone else for that matter, can issue take down requests.

CyanideCupcake · 2019-12-01 23:59:51

liftarn wrote:

Yes, the tags and description should be as objective as possible. However that should not be the same thing as not allowing unflattering caricatures and such things.
If I search for "pig" I would expect to find images of pigs. If it's a caricature where a politician is pictured as a pig then such a tag would probably be valid.

That's a good point about unflattering caricatures and I completely agree. In this particular case, it was just a vector adapted from a real photo of the politician.

I guess what I mean to say is though the clipart itself might have an agenda, tags and descriptions should not.

CyanideCupcake · 2019-12-02 00:21:56

Derivative artwork can be quite tricky and is often a legal gray area anyway, but it's probably best to err on the side of caution since we want users to be able to download and use the cliparts on this site with confidence knowing they are CC0.

Some fan arts are obviously not okay like a My Little Pony "fan art" that was posted. It was an exact copy of the first image that comes up when you search Pinkie Pie, only sans cutie mark. Copyright lawyers would not turn a blind eye to that one.

Whereas that Sorting Hat looks nothing like any official depictions of the Sorting Hat. It's pretty unique. If the name of the artwork was changed to "Talking Witch Hat" or similar it would be fine. So much like Rob says, it's not just the artwork looking like copyright protected material, it's also about it making claims that connect to the protected work.

If we flat out state "No derivatives of copy-written works" we'll probably end up with significantly less users trying to submit works in that legal gray area.

boris · 2019-12-02 16:59:05

Thanks for some very good points regarding copyright from all of you. Here are some of my observations regarding copyright and rules in general.

Thing is that anything that is trademarked cannot be released in public domain by anyone except the owner of a trademark. For example image of Ford car can be trademarked, the design itself, name of the model etc. The other day I deleted Google logo which happened to be in the database. How people upload these files with public domain license I have no idea.

Derived work should be acceptable only if the original work is in public domain.

Avoid use of commercial fonts, even converted to outlines they are still trademarked, there are fonts in public domain available.

As CyanideCupcake pointed out, there is a problem with describing images and making connections to trademarks when in essence similarities are very vague. If you draw a car, why claim it is Ford Mustang when it can be any sports car and if similarities are really difficult to see.

Regarding publishing rules I would like to quote some excerpts from Google Publisher policy:

"We do not allow content that:

- incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization.
- harasses, intimidates, or bullies an individual or group of individuals.

- includes graphic sexual text, image, audio, video, or games.
Examples: Sex acts such as genital, anal, and/or oral sex; masturbation; cartoon porn or hentai; graphic nudity

- contains non-consensual sexual themes, whether simulated or real.
Examples: Rape, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, snuff, lolita or teen-themed pornography, underage dating

- may be interpreted as promoting a sexual act in exchange for compensation.
Examples: Prostitution, companionship and escort services, intimate massage, cuddling sites"

These are rules for debate only but in general I do agree with them.

liftarn · 2019-12-03 10:06:39

boris wrote:

Thing is that anything that is trademarked cannot be released in public domain by anyone except the owner of a trademark. For example image of Ford car can be trademarked, the design itself, name of the model etc. The other day I deleted Google logo which happened to be in the database. How people upload these files with public domain license I have no idea.

Let's not slip into copyright paranoia.

It appears the shape of a car can not be trademarked. General Court: car shape found not registrable (decision of 25 November 2015, case T-629/14)

Using the name and model as a description should not be a problem either (IANAL) as you don't claim ownership of it. Trademark law only limits the ways you use it. As FreeSVG don't make cars it's not a problem.

Simple letter/colour/font combinations (such as the Google logo) do not qualify for copyright status. Such simple logos are considered "public domain," meaning that anyone can use them – although the way that people can use a public domain logo would still be limited by trademark law.

See Wikipedia:Logo Copyright/Trademark for a more in depth description.

liftarn · 2019-12-03 10:16:48

boris wrote:

Avoid use of commercial fonts, even converted to outlines they are still trademarked, there are fonts in public domain available.

Trademarks has nothing to do with it (IANAL). Copyright may do, but "Trademark law protects only the name of a typeface, but not the design of the typeface." (The Law on Fonts and Typefaces in Design and Marketing: Frequently Asked Questions (about commercial and non-commercial use))

j4p4n · 2019-12-03 14:07:32

I 100% agree with liftarn, using the font (especially converted to paths) should be no problem. We should avoid logos just to avoid the headaches with them, but just designing a camera or a car that looks like something famous isn't a problem if made by hand. I make direct traced derivative works of only images that no longer have copyright. Of course nobody should trace something still under copyright. I also agree that although we shouldn't accept copyrighted work, we shouldn't get paranoid. smile

boris · 2019-12-03 14:15:45

liftarn wrote:

boris wrote:
Avoid use of commercial fonts, even converted to outlines they are still trademarked, there are fonts in public domain available.
Trademarks has nothing to do with it (IANAL). Copyright may do, but "Trademark law protects only the name of a typeface, but not the design of the typeface." (The Law on Fonts and Typefaces in Design and Marketing: Frequently Asked Questions (about commercial and non-commercial use))

Thanks for clarifying this.

rob_s · 2019-12-03 14:25:26

I think the point Boris is trying to make is originality would be preferred along with remixes of other CC0 content, as there is less chance or copywrite infringement, along with some of the other things mentioned by others, but blatent copying of Logo's, Characters such as cartoons / hentai / game characters and fonts to a degree think Cocacola / disney should be avoided.

rob_s · 2019-12-03 14:32:52

J4P4N, fonts really are a mine field, using a commercially available font even when converted to a path would be a problem, It depends on the permitted usage rights, buy purchasing the font your more or less entering a contractual agreement, not to use the font for any other purpose that the sale intended it for. I don't know how enforceable these rules are, I only know they are exist. It's like antivirus, you can pay for a single license for one machine, or a premium for many, it's the same product just sold for different circumstances.

boris · 2019-12-03 14:59:33

It appears the shape of a car can not be trademarked. General Court: car shape found not registrable (decision of 25 November 2015, case T-629/14)

Using the name and model as a description should not be a problem either (IANAL) as you don't claim ownership of it. Trademark law only limits the ways you use it. As FreeSVG don't make cars it's not a problem.

I do not agree. There is a reason why all images with trademarks on Shutterstock (that features 230 million images) are for editorial use only. Even images without visible trademark but with identifiable silhouette of a car are for Editorial use only. Probably the only reason none of these car companies ever asked for removal of these images is that they do not have any direct harm from these clip art. Giving people right to do whatever they want with images that feature parts that are somewhere registered as trademarks or protected by copyright law is tricky although I admit it is very likely it will not be challenged by anyone. https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can- … 41105.html

Simple letter/colour/font combinations (such as the Google logo) do not qualify for copyright status. Such simple logos are considered "public domain," meaning that anyone can use them – although the way that people can use a public domain logo would still be limited by trademark law.

I would not like to test this claim in court. Google logo is trademark and to use it you will need permission from Google. To publish it on public domain site and tell users you can use it for whatever you want is just not good idea...https://www.google.com/permissions/logos-trademarks/

boris · 2019-12-03 15:20:18

rob_s wrote:

I think the point Boris is trying to make is originality would be preferred along with remixes of other CC0 content, as there is less chance or copywrite infringement, along with some of the other things mentioned by others, but blatent copying of Logo's, Characters such as cartoons / hentai / game characters and fonts to a degree think Cocacola / disney should be avoided.

This is exactly the point. There is no need to include trademarks, copyrighted images clip art etc as it always comes down to different interpretations between different lawyers. Considering the vast pool of public domain resources on the Web I think there is no need to even challenge any legality of any trademarks or copyrighted or patented work not even if we are going to include it in the most simple clip art.

j4p4n · 2019-12-10 17:39:43

Although I agree font use is tricky, even these pages explain that using a outline vector of a typeface and not the font file itself, would be OK even in restricted non-free font cases.
https://www.crowdspring.com/blog/font-law-licensing/
This site says it more simply:
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can- … 67842.html

A font is not generally copyrightable. However the computer code that generates the font on a computer may be copyrightable. If we assume that it is analogous to a blueprint for a picnic bench -- you can't "copy" the graphic blueprint (download the code for the font) but you can use the information to make an uncopyrightable useful item, the bench (the image of a letter generated by the code) without infringing -- then there is an argument that calligraphy from tracing could be OK. This assumes there is no "art" in the font, like animal figures, or medieval manuscripts.

Last edited by j4p4n (2019-12-10 17:40:43)

rob_s · 2019-12-10 19:36:29

J4P4N, we are talking about fonts not typefaces, from what I understand it typefaces are options like: extra bold, bold, regular, light, italic, condensed, which understandably is not copyrighted the font however, which will have been pain stakenly designed by an artist like yourself can be copyrighted. I may be mistaken but didn't you used to design fonts yourselves, these are fonts you contributed aren't they?: https://fontlibrary.org/en/search?query=j4p4n

I don't believe your argument that tracing a font holds water, as most modern day fonts, like TTF OTF fonts are already vectored, as they evolved from postscript concepts that also heavily influenced SVG development. What you appear to be saying is it is OK to trace a font and make it into a vector from a font that was already a vector, which I don't believe is correct. If however you are talking about tracing historical documents, or images that containing vintage text like the weed killer image you posted recently:https://freesvg.org/vintage-weed-killer, then I have no idea, I guess it depends on whether by doing so, you will be infringing an active trademark or Copywrite.

I am not an expert on fonts, and less of an expert on Copywrite issues but for anyone considering using a font in their artwork, who also intends on composing the text, then my advise would be to firstly downloaded the font from a reputable source, you should find it has been pre packaged in a zip file / compression archive, and in addition to the font, you should find a text file which usually confirms what usage right you have. Some font manager programs also include this information, but it's rarely ever filled in, so should not be relied upon, If in doubt try contacting the font designer, and if you can't make contact then find another similar font that is ok to use for the intended purpose.

It also appears to differ from one country to the next:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellect … _typefaces

In the case of USA, I think this sums it up: The machine code used to display a stylized typeface (called a font) is protectable as copyright. Since an SVG is machine code just like any other graphics file format, then I think it applies, but that's just my personal opinion.

FreeSVG community discussion forum

#1 2019-11-22 21:10:39

[FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#2 2019-11-23 01:18:32

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#3 2019-11-23 11:04:31

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#4 2019-11-27 15:28:57

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#5 2019-11-28 01:08:57

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#6 2019-11-28 09:02:25

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#7 2019-11-28 11:45:28

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#8 2019-12-01 23:59:51

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#9 2019-12-02 00:21:56

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#10 2019-12-02 16:59:05

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#11 2019-12-03 10:06:39

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#12 2019-12-03 10:16:48

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#13 2019-12-03 14:07:32

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#14 2019-12-03 14:15:45

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#15 2019-12-03 14:25:26

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#16 2019-12-03 14:32:52

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#17 2019-12-03 14:59:33

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#18 2019-12-03 15:20:18

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#19 2019-12-10 17:39:43

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

#20 2019-12-10 19:36:29

Re: [FEATURE] site guidelines & code of conduct 2b agreed upon and publish

Board footer