User talk:AltaKarl
Latest comment: 28 September by Chaotic Enby in topic About your logo proposal for "explain xkcd"
About your logo proposal for "explain xkcd"[edit]
Hey, we liked your logo proposal for the wiki. We still haven't decided yet and the discussion is still open, but we were wondering if you could help us with something else, namely the logo that appears next to a Wikipedia link.
For example notice how this link has a small "W" icon next to it? And xkcd.com has a different icon. We'd like to change the first icon, the one for Wikipedia links, to a puzzle piece similar to the one in this section, drawn in the xkcd style. Would you be able to draw it?
Thanks! FaviFake (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for reaching out! I was definitely able to do it, here it is on Google Drive! I was fortunately able to do it at the same size as the original without any visible distortion too, so that's nice. If you have any feedback please let me know! AltaKarl (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- OMG THAT LOOKS SO GOOD! It's perfect, thank you so much! How long did it take you to make?
- Also, in case other people want to use it for their own wikis, would you be ok with releasing it into the public domain? That would just mean that anyone could use it freely, without having to credit you. FaviFake (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you so much!!! This took me about 2 hours, it could've been shorter if I just made it a raster image, but I wanted to make it a cleaner vector image so that took some more time.
- As for the public domain stuff, I'd love to make it public, however the original image has a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license which says "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original", so I am not sure if I can actually do that, but if it is possible to have it in the public domain I'd be alright with that AltaKarl (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah it looks incredible thank you so much!
- Regarding the public domain stuff, I'm pretty sure your work is considered new and thus is not just a mere "remix" of the image above (as you said, it took hours!). We asked you to draw it in the xkcd style precisely because we didn't want it to be copyright-protected like the original. But I'm no expert so I'd like to hear what our resident "copyright person" Chaotic Enby thinks about it before uploading it to commons :) FaviFake (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm very glad you've liked it!! And yeah, I would like to wait to hear from someone who knows more about this before we do anything AltaKarl (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- It is certainly a separate work (i.e. with a brand new copyright), although it is still considered a derivative work. In other words, the image contains both copyrights, yours and that of the original author at the same time. The original copyright is licensed under CC BY-SA, meaning that any derivative work has to be redistributed with the same license or a compatible one (or the GNU license which is yet another can of worms we're not opening). On the other hand, the images are relatively simple, and they aren't that far away from the threshold of originality, which might make it unsuitable for copyright entirely (meaning that part of the license wouldn't be applicable), in other words public domain. I'll have to ask around! Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- Asking around, looks like they're below TOO and it's all fine! Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- Ooo that's good!! So it can be public domain? AltaKarl (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it is! Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Ooo that's good!! So it can be public domain? AltaKarl (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Asking around, looks like they're below TOO and it's all fine! Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- It is certainly a separate work (i.e. with a brand new copyright), although it is still considered a derivative work. In other words, the image contains both copyrights, yours and that of the original author at the same time. The original copyright is licensed under CC BY-SA, meaning that any derivative work has to be redistributed with the same license or a compatible one (or the GNU license which is yet another can of worms we're not opening). On the other hand, the images are relatively simple, and they aren't that far away from the threshold of originality, which might make it unsuitable for copyright entirely (meaning that part of the license wouldn't be applicable), in other words public domain. I'll have to ask around! Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm very glad you've liked it!! And yeah, I would like to wait to hear from someone who knows more about this before we do anything AltaKarl (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2026 (UTC)