File talk:War.png

Violates data mining part of WW:IMAGE
As cool as this image is, since it can't be done in-game (mounted shooting of a bow) and is obviously from a model viewer it violates WW:IMAGE.
 * Note that datamined pictures of unreleased content or exploited pictures of unfinished areas are not allowed.

To do this in-game would require an exploit or hack. This is borderline, so I'd like to here good arguments why this might not be a violation. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 5:36 PM PST 2 Jan 2008


 * Where do we cross the line between datamining and machinanima special effects (or old fashioned photoshoping)? I mean we see alot of impossible stunts in machinanima videos you can't see in the actual game...Baggins 01:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems fine to me. If it was in-game then it would be an exploit.-- 01:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be easier to not apply that particular section of WW:IMAGE to fan fiction (I believe the intention of the section is to cut down on images of unreleased content which may be covered by NDA/ToU; even your quote forbids only "[...] unreleased content or [...] unfinished areas"), which generally consists of things that aren't possible in-game. -- Starlightblunder 01:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm generally in agreement that model viewer created stuff is harmless, but we really need some feedback from a Blizzard source. Showing things you can't do in-game may not be considered unreleased content, but it is definitely a gray area. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 5:51 PM PST 2 Jan 2008


 * Would the machinima letter suffice? Essentially, it's a grant of license to use WoW's/Blizzard products' assets to create machinima non-commercially; the same principle would very likely apply to static images. -- Starlightblunder 01:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blizzard seems to be generally fine with machinima, either making their own, or allowing fans to make it, and then offering links on their site for the quality ones.Baggins 01:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the most important part is that the assets used must already have been announced, which this image seems to comply with. 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)