|
|
|
I'm not sure if we all learned this through our adventures in formal schooling, real life, and/or Wiki editing, but just because you edit an image [resize, remove a watermark, flip, make transparent, etc.] does not mean you own it. This is why proper licensing and asking for permission are so critically important. Just a reminder.
It seems to me that some of us agree with artwork transparency. What we haven't determined is what artwork qualifies...Meaning we're back at square one. It's apparent that ENX is strictly against any form of artwork transparency. I'm still not quite sure what to make of this. I'm no image expert by any means, but I fail to see how having some artwork such as or File:Rikku (Concept) (Art).png destroys or defaces the artwork. All images, sprites, artworks- anything and everything in the game and/or released in promotion/for the game- belongs to someone. Also, most images, even renders released from official sources, come with a white background. Not sure why, some just do. We aren't making images transparent to deliberately destroy or focus on a specific part; most transparencies are done because the excess white backgrounds are unnecessary and/or distracting. Take the images I've previously listed. I fail to see how "deeply"/darkly/clearly outlined artworks, such as Aladdin and Rikku are negatively affected by transparency. The images are either completely colored in or are so well defined in "pencil" that the "cookie-cutter" style of removing the excess white background is not harmful. Now for "lighter" colored/shaded images such as File:Sora (Early Concept) 3 (Art).png, I think having a white background is helpful so you can clearly see the image. I think we would be better off using a case by case situation.
|
|
|