Compromise the art of tiking everyone off - Submarine - Carriers - and the future or (AP/SAP-HE-Torps current meta to Sub-Carrier-Other the new Meta)

[kriegerfaust]

As itis now the main triangle is comprised of Torpedoes, AP/Sap, HE.  That is things that do direct damage, things that set things on fire and things that flood.  What if the future triangle is Air, surface and subsurface.  Now let me explain the problem is twofold about carriers and submarines.  One the only counter tactic is team play, which in a better game would be a given.  The second is the limited and bluntly unfun way you fight carriers and submarines.

 

I know most of you would rather gargle glass than allow missiles into the game.  Give people the tools to fight carriers and submarines why variety.  Give us real meaningful ways to set up our ships.  Do we want to go heavy in a preset for anti-sub, or antiair or antiship.  This would also force us into team play with someone taking the anti-sub role.  New ships like the European destroyers that are real good at cutting down planes from carriers.   

Already the game has a lot of paper ships, what about upgrading ships with some of the cool cold war weapons.  6/6 inch dual purpose guns are already boosting the AA of high tier ships.  57-75MM are being added as well but lets face it the only real way to take down a plane is at range.  Killing planes takes time, 20-40MM and under is almost useless.  Now this would require a lot of work on the companies part but in the end it would open up a lot of new options.  

Now the big problem is how do you engage a sub, planes and or ship is some weird combo.  It is easier to engage three ships at one time as the tactic is the same for all three.  The key is not to nerf subs and carriers but to give ships the power to fight back against these threats.  Maybe there is no way to fix it to make it fun to fight carriers and submarines.  Maybe its is just a fact of life or maybe you could make it fun to play a role the sub hunting cruiser, destroyer.  The plane swatting cruiser or battleship i know you want to be able to do everything at once but maybe just maybe realism is realizing that you can't do it all.

[Northern Nightowl]

Just for your information @kriegerfaust: You've deeplinked an image from Wikimedia Commons that is not in the Public Domain by virtue ob having been taken by a US Government employee (the AK-630 image is such a PD-US-Navy still). By removing the license attributes, you've committed a copyright infringement. You are to link the full licensing page or append a licensing tag, the Bofors ASW weapon photograph is licensed with a Creative Commons license (CC-By-SA 3.0). You cannot IMHO (IANAL) fall back on the US doctrine of fair use, as by removing the licensing tag, you're totally affecting the value of the work, hence making it a non-fair use.

While Wikimedia Commons is a great repository for images that have a low threshold for usage rights, the minimum, respecting the FOSS licensing schemes, must be upheld (that's only a minor typing work in case of Creative Commons licenses).

Regards, Nightowl

[Aethervox]

Your post, kriegerfaust, has nothing to do with WoWS.  I (& some admire, I'm sure) your posting enthusiasm here but this one seems to be way too modern times, so, therefore, what is the point of this particular post?

[BOBTHEBALL]

I'm also confused what is going on lol

[b101uk]

5 hours ago, Northern Nightowl said:

Just for your information @kriegerfaust: You've deeplinked an image from Wikimedia Commons that is not in the Public Domain by virtue ob having been taken by a US Government employee (the AK-630 image is such a PD-US-Navy still). By removing the license attributes, you've committed a copyright infringement. You are to link the full licensing page or append a licensing tag, the Bofors ASW weapon photograph is licensed with a Creative Commons license (CC-By-SA 3.0). You cannot IMHO (IANAL) fall back on the US doctrine of fair use, as by removing the licensing tag, you're totally affecting the value of the work, hence making it a non-fair use.

While Wikimedia Commons is a great repository for images that have a low threshold for usage rights, the minimum, respecting the FOSS licensing schemes, must be upheld (that's only a minor typing work in case of Creative Commons licenses).

Regards, Nightowl

the image of the AK-630 is listed as public domain

see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AK-630_30_mm_naval_CIWS_gun.JPEG?uselang=en#Licensing

to quote

Quote

This image is a work of a U.S. military or Department of Defense employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain in the United States.

 

[HogHammer]

In the area of copyrights, be it articles or photos, DevStrike does require giving proper credit for these items outside of the "public domain."  This is stated in our guidelines.

I will add that it is valuable, at least for me, and I would expect some other members to provide links to any material you deem of interest to forum members.  There are often times when some written material or images grab my attention, and I just want to read a little more about the topic or see additional images.  Just providing a link, regardless of the copyright or lack of one, is more of a courtesy to members of the forum.

 

[iDuckman]

14 hours ago, Northern Nightowl said:

Just for your information @kriegerfaust: You've deeplinked an image from Wikimedia Commons that is not in the Public Domain by virtue ob having been taken by a US Government employee (the AK-630 image is such a PD-US-Navy still). By removing the license attributes, you've committed a copyright infringement. You are to link the full licensing page or append a licensing tag, the Bofors ASW weapon photograph is licensed with a Creative Commons license (CC-By-SA 3.0). You cannot IMHO (IANAL) fall back on the US doctrine of fair use, as by removing the licensing tag, you're totally affecting the value of the work, hence making it a non-fair use.

While Wikimedia Commons is a great repository for images that have a low threshold for usage rights, the minimum, respecting the FOSS licensing schemes, must be upheld (that's only a minor typing work in case of Creative Commons licenses).

Regards, Nightowl

US government photos and documents *are* in the public domain.  (Unless they're classified.)

Otherwise, you're basically right about the CC license.  Not that I always do it either.

 

[Northern Nightowl]

16 hours ago, Northern Nightowl said:

the AK-630 image is such a PD-US-Navy still

Was this wording this much prone to misunderstandings, maybe due to some Wikipedia jargon? There, you will encounter shorts like "PD-USGov", "PD-USN" and so on, with PD = public domain.

Most of my text dealt with the "BoforsElma2.jpg" file, not about the AK-630 image. Only this Bofors mortar picture has some obvious (lenient) usage restrictions (unsure about the smaller ones).

To whom it may concern: whenever you happen to want to use a openly licensed file from Wikimedia Commons, use the licensing generator of the page. It's accessible behind the link "Use this file" right of the globe in the header box. Save for particular cases, it does its task well and at least shows a will to respect the licensing.

Otherwise, you may do the

16 hours ago, Northern Nightowl said:

minor typing work in case of Creative Commons licenses.

For the Bofors mortar image, it would be sufficient to add a line below the image like: Image by Dagjoh licensed with the Creative Commons license CC-By-SA 3.0, sourced from Wikimedia Commons. Please note the link destinations.

BTW, classifying information does AFAIK not affect its copyright status, only its public accessibility. There are pictures that were likely taken by KH-11 Kennen EO satellites, obviously classified, but not under protection by US copyright, examples that are actually public domain (both found in the linked KH-11 Wikipedia article):

Regards, Nightowl

[b101uk]

33 minutes ago, Northern Nightowl said:

Was this wording this much prone to misunderstandings, maybe due to some Wikipedia jargon? There, you will encounter shorts like "PD-USGov", "PD-USN" and so on, with PD = public domain.

Most of my text dealt with the "BoforsElma2.jpg" file, not about the AK-630 image. Only this Bofors mortar picture has some obvious (lenient) usage restrictions (unsure about the smaller ones).

To whom it may concern: whenever you happen to want to use a openly licensed file from Wikimedia Commons, use the licensing generator of the page. It's accessible behind the link "Use this file" right of the globe in the header box. Save for particular cases, it does its task well and at least shows a will to respect the licensing.

Otherwise, you may do the

For the Bofors mortar image, it would be sufficient to add a line below the image like: Image by Dagjoh licensed with the Creative Commons license CC-By-SA 3.0, sourced from Wikimedia Commons. Please note the link destinations.

BTW, classifying information does AFAIK not affect its copyright status, only its public accessibility. There are pictures that were likely taken by KH-11 Kennen EO satellites, obviously classified, but not under protection by US copyright, examples that are actually public domain (both found in the linked KH-11 Wikipedia article):

image snip from quote by b101uk

Regards, Nightowl

I would argue you are making a needless mountain out of what is at most a molehill.

 

the image has NOT been change, altered etc (as permitted by the licence), the image is not being used in any commercial or money making endeavour where attribution would be the norm, while the image used within the post was entirely the original link, and is not being republished per se, like would happen if the image was downloaded then uploaded to imgur then linked from imgur in this thread which would definetly require attribution.

 

in essence to share and to remix IMO has a different meaning, and share is not applying to the original link but to the distribution of the jpg via other direct methods (e.g. via imgur or other methods)  that do NOT reference to the original link.

Edited December 17, 2023 by b101uk

[Northern Nightowl]

2 hours ago, b101uk said:

and is not being republished per se, like would happen if the image was downloaded then uploaded to imgur then linked from imgur in this thread which would definetly require attribution.

I seem to recall that there are actually some high court of law decisions (at least, of the Bundesgerichtshof, the highest federal court of law in Germany) that do indeed state that a deep link, also within frames on a website, without the original context is the same as a republication, even though the media data is still on the source server. It does not matter whether the republication is commercial or not; commercial usages only incur a risk of higher (also punitive, in the US) damage compensations.

The point of FOSS licenses is not to explicitly allow modifications (cropping, black and white, distortions...) and remixes, but rather to acknowledge the original creator(s). https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/BoforsElma2.jpg lacks any attribution that are present on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BoforsElma2.jpg. In fact, the software Mediawiki itself does not uphold the licensing standards, namely attribution display inextricably linked to the media, very well. There are some voices that argue this contributes also a licensing infringement, but that point has not been challenged or decided in court yet, as far as I know.

Denying or not placing any attribution as required by Creative Commons licenses is basically denying any consideration for the creator, whereas this consideration is the sole expectation of him for the usage permission. Such a behaviour may be comparable to a guy who asks you to help him trim his garden hedge, paint the walls of a room or house or any other housekeeping tasks. Afterwards, he states towards others that he did this work by himself, denying you the recognition for your contribution. Nice or not nice?

2 hours ago, b101uk said:

I would argue you are making a needless mountain out of what is at most a molehill.

Perhaps, but as the ideology of "'Oh, this is a nice image here on Google! I'll show it now!' without the slightest consideration about licensing and copyrights" is rampant among youths and elders equally, I did want to speak up about this case. Maybe the awareness about licensing schemes and the issue of taking stiff without thinking will, if only ever so slightly, get higher. It's certain: if nobody points out such issues, nothing will change.

Regards, Nightowl