Hey guys. I need some advice on whether it's actually legal to use content from wikimedia commons in my warlight maps. here's my specific situation:

Here is the graphic I would like to use in my map:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boat_-_Heraldry.svg

And here is an example of it implemented into the map in question:

https://www.warlight.net/Play?PreviewMap=43909

As you can see, I have slightly modified it, by doing things like changing the colors of the sails, removing the Coat of arms from the sails, and flipping it around.

It says on the page to give credit to the author of the graphic, which I plan to do in the final map. My question is, for people who are more experienced with the creative commons license that this is under, is it legal to use it in the manner that I am?

"legal to use"

Hahahaha (Yes)

Edited 5/15/2015 21:40:49

I feel like you're Condescending on me :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SZzFaAZyY

If you do not want any trouble which plagiarism, just write in small letters in your map that the original drawings are from ....
Just like I did with https://www.warlight.net/Map/15724-Narnian-World
I wrote the original drawing/picture map was made by Jamison Hartley
If copyright is active on a picture, you can get trouble if you do not tell your source, that will suggest that you made it by yourself.

Dude this is a nice LotR map you got there, if you need some testers when its finished you can put me on your list

Why are you worried about using a ship (which is licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license), but use Lord of the Rings (which, to the best of my knowledge, isn't licensed for use at all) without even thinking about it?

It actually specifically tells you what you have to do in order to be allowed to reuse those ships:

You are free:

• to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  
• to remix – to adapt the work
  

Under the following conditions:

• attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
  
• share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
  

I'm not sure whether that last bit means

• you have to share (essentially, give your map a CC Attribution-Share Alike license as well)
  
• if you decide to share it, you have to do so under the CC Attribution-Share Alike license (but you're also allowed not to share it at all).

@Willem van Orange:

Simply naming the source prevents accusations of plagiarism, but that is mostly an issue when you publish books or research papers. While there are specific licences which include naming the source as a condition for use (such as indeed CC Attribution), there are many cases where you are NOT allowed to use something even if you name the source.

The word "copyright" does NOT mean "your right to make copies", it refers to "the author's right to determine who is allowed to make copies". The original author would be well within their legal rights if they say "nobody else is allowed to make use of this work, at all" (which is actually the default if an author doesn't specifically say otherwise).

As an example, do you think I would be allowed to give copies of my favourite film to all my friends, just so long as I tell them the original author is some specific Hollywood studio? While I can certainly understand your feeling "oh come on, it's only a ship", legally speaking, there is no difference; both are "creative works" and receive the same legal protection. Note that reusing without following the requirements of the license is pretty much the same thing as reusing when the work is not licensed at all. (While I strongly doubt it would actually happen, technically speaking the original author could sue for violation of the license!)

Don't say I haven't thought about it, I've thought about it extensively.

The reason i'm not concerned with the map is because literally everything is technically original artwork(I drew it by hand, albeit while an expanded universe map was overlayed).

The only real thing that's copyrighted is the shape of the continents/mountains, but I essentially just did some fan art of them.

Technically there is a claim on the Territory names as well, but 90% of the ones i'm using aren't even Canon, since none of these places are named in the Tolkien Canon.

It isn't quite the same case for the ship, which is someone elses artwork just plopped onto the map.

Edited 5/17/2015 04:24:44

The only real thing that's copyrighted is the shape of the continents/mountains, but I essentially just did some fan art of them.

Technically there is a claim on the Territory names as well, but 90% of the ones i'm using aren't even Canon, since none of these places are named in the Tolkien Canon.

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that'd make it legal.

"fan art" doesn't sound like legalese; the word you're looking for is probably "derived work".

"90% aren't canon" still means "10% are canon (read: infringement)".

---

Just to be perfectly clear:

• I'm not saying it's a bad map.
  
• I doubt this will get you into legal trouble (only that it technically could).
  
• The question you asked was whether "it's actually legal" (not whether you would "get away with it"), that's the question I answered. I'm sorry if it's not the answer you were looking for.
  
• Regarding the ships: yes, reusing them is perfectly fine, so long as you give attribution (link back to the Wikipedia page you also linked above) in either the map itself or its description (or both). I'm unsure whether you're legally required to license the map as CC too, but I'd suggest it's the right thing to do morally.
  

If you think I asked for yours or anyone elses opinion on my map, You're sadly mistaken. You felt the need to butt in with your useless opinions on an unrelated topic after the question had already been answered twice.

Yes, as you said, You are "not a lawyer", so your opinion on aforementioned unrelated topic is completely useless.

If you think I asked for yours or anyone elses opinion on my map, You're sadly mistaken.

Your post from 5/17/2015 06:07:33 seemed very defensive; I thought you might have gotten the impression I was attacking your map, that's why I wanted to make clear that's not the case. If you didn't take it as such, great, no problem then.

You felt the need to butt in with your useless opinions on an unrelated topic after the question had already been answered twice.

You asked "for people who are more experienced with the creative commons license"; while I'm not a certified expert, I do have a little experience with it (and, from you asking this question, at least more than you do). In other words, you were addressing me; how then did I "butt in"?
The reason I added my answer is RA's answer contains no explanation at all, making it difficult to judge it merits and Willem's answer is (to the best of my knowledge) not fully correct.
How touching upon a copyright issue in a thread about copyright issues is "unrelated" is beyond me (linking to an utterly weird Japanese Youtube video is what I would call "unrelated").

Yes, as you said, You are "not a lawyer", so your opinion on aforementioned unrelated topic is completely useless.

Ehm wait, so you think RA and Willem van Oranje are lawyers? With a specialisation in US copyright law? That's... "highly unlikely" to put it mildly. Why are their answers not "completely useless"?

You completely missed the point. I have NEVER asked for ANY opinions on my map. You decided to Butt in with yours, but since your opinion on my map is unqualified, it is useless.

I asked if it would be legal to use the ship, And you gave your opinion about my map. Your Opinion about my map Is what is useless.

Edited 5/18/2015 00:56:36