UDWiki:Open Discussion/Copyright, Citations, and Attributions

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


I actually had a little chat with Mis regarding copy right information, and how to use it appropriately, with citations. He said as long as I attributed the work correctly I should be fine. My thoughts lay within the same realm, but thought it appropriate to establish a policy regarding copyright information.

Basically, with all the media out there, Images, the ability to upload musical media, and the like,... I figured it would be appropriate to have a policy regarding attribution of ownership. Basically something like wikipedia has for Non-Free Content, and their Copyright Policy.

To be honest, the Non-Free Content policy is more along the lines of what I had in mind when considering this, though I liked the format of wikipedia's Copyright Policy. So I'd like to discuss possibly having a policy regarding attributing ownership, rights, and copyrights to their respected owners appropriately. Also to be discussed should be what media should require citations, and attributions, as well as what should be included in the citations, and what the criteria should be for identifying material in need of this information.

Discussion

I'll be glad to participate. The first big thing is that we are using UK copyright law and not US copyright law, since the UD servers are based in the UK. Feel free to read Project:Copyrights, the UDWiki talk:Copyright Project, Copyright, International Copyright, and UK Copyright fact sheet and Fair Dealing in the UK. One of the first things we will want to do is to go around and finish documenting all of the images, citing them, and adding the Copyright Template to those images. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:11, 28 June 2010 (BST)

I like what you submitted here Akule. Perhaps we should write something up regarding international copyright law, because that seems to be the most influential here. It seems that if a work were created in one state/country/province, that a copyright for that work would be honored elsewhere in the world. So it would seem that UK Copyright Law would be unimportant, especially using this as the basis for that argument. -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 22:27, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Nope, the server's in the UK, so UK copyright law is what's most important. Then international.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:33, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Yup. UK Copyright law is what's most important. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:44, 28 June 2010 (BST)

Are we really going to find sources for every non-original image on this wiki? That kind of effort might make Mis cry. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 22:21, 28 June 2010 (BST)

No,... I don't think that that is truly necessary. I would love to see it done, and if someone wanted to look over images, and make it happen, that would be great... but we could just wait until the needs arise. -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 22:24, 28 June 2010 (BST)
We categorized the wiki. I don't see why we can't use the UDWiki:Copyright Project page to do the same, but just for copyrights. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:44, 28 June 2010 (BST)
There's a difference between looking at an image and categorising it, than looking at an image, seeing if it looks copyrighted, searching the entire internet for an owner, finding a contact or website address and then adding it to a template. YOU do that with scores of thousands of images. -- 23:33, 28 June 2010 (BST)

I think we should have a hybrid between US and UK copyright laws. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:22, 28 June 2010 (BST)

See my response to Akule above.... -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 22:27, 28 June 2010 (BST)
But the one thing I think would be a problem is this: Most users don't readily have permission to use Copyright images, but they upload them to this wiki anyway. Most of the time, the would just credit the original users (as it is with the Copyright Image templates). In fact, I don't even think there was a case once of UDWiki recieving a "cease and desist" notice. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:32, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Incorrect. Kevan himself stated he had two by 2007.
Kevan said:
Two: one angry lawyer demand over use of the name "Medical Defence Union" and one obviously reasonable request from Packard Jennings about the mall pictures. The wiki bureaucracy should be able to support the speedy deletion of any future such requests; if you want to thrash out a good wording, that's fine - but given that this is purely an issue of what I decide to host on my own server, this must be enacted in some form, and I'll press the "carte blanche" button when it's ready to go. --Kevan 19:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are some more thoughts from Kevan on this topic. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:44, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Note, Kevan supports a policy on copyrights AND for the Speedy Deletion of Copyrighted Images, by saying that it must be enacted in some form. He also notes that he can enable off-site hosting if we wanted. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:51, 28 June 2010 (BST)
And what about names that are clearly copyright? Some groups, such as the Channel 4 News Team, are clearly copyright. I don't think Ron Burgundy (yet another copyright) got permission from the makers of Anchorman to use the names and such. What's our copyright policy on that? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:59, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Or how about a name that's not a group, such as the Sears Auto Repair, which is clearly a copyright on the name, and is, may I also add, a name that is clearly being used in-game? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:03, 28 June 2010 (BST)
That depends. Are we following the current Copyright Policy to the letter? By the letter of the law in fair dealing in the UK and according to the Copyright Policy (you know, the little text at the bottom of each edit page that states: "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Project:Copyrights for details). DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION! ") it would not be allowed. Of course, if you look at the UDWiki talk:Copyright Project, you'll note that we were going to concentrate on just citing copyright first, and then going from there. Oh, and I had actually brought up this very topic before, but it was a part of a series of deletion requests to point out that the sysop team at the time were very strictly obeying the letter of the law in some policies (which they used to chase off people they didn't like), but completely ignoring other policies, which I felt was hypocritical.
A question for everyone: Tell me, do you honestly want it to go that far? Where is the line for people? Where is that point that you want to say: "I don't care about copyrights that much. If it comes up, we can deal with it then." --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:15, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Which brings up my next question. "How exactly do we define allowable Copyright materials on the wiki?" --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:27, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Since the people who care have been asking those questions for 4 years and it hasn't been answered, I wouldn't hold my breath right now. -- 23:33, 28 June 2010 (BST)
You can't answer a question if someone is holding their fingers in their ears and shouting "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA". --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:42, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Citing what we have should be first. Then we would have to figure out what we want to be allowed in and what shouldn't be. Or we just follow this:
Kevan said:
There's definitely room for movement, I don't see the wiki content as being that different from a hosted forum with people fair-using random copyrighted images for their usericons. The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is people uploading unedited images which then appear to be original content on my server, particularly to people finding it through Google images (UDWiki is the top result for "resident evil army", linking to a now-deleted image) - it's okay if it's an obvious frame from a film or something, but anyone who found the mall nudists artwork would assume it was original UD-user-created content, or public domain clipart, and that's bad. If there's a good summary of what is and isn't fair use, I'd be happy to adopt that for the wiki.
Or this:
Kevan said:
Alternatively, this might just be an argument for re-enabling off-site images (which is just a single config setting) - the only reason I disabled it was to avoid the problem of people hosting pictures on their own servers and then changing them unexpectedly (perhaps after being banned), and to make it easier to keep track of who was responsible for what, but I don't have a strong feeling either way on this. --Kevan
That way if the images are hosted off-site, Kevan is better protected, and if we get a complaint about a copyrighted image, we can have a Speedy Deletion criteria for sysops that allow them to delete an image if it its copyright is contested by the copyright holder. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:42, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Not this shit again... Remove/Cite copyright material? In 2005? Yes. In 2010? No. The amount of copyrighted material used without permission on this wiki is catastrophically large. Even with everyone one board it would take straight weeks to complete, and that's ignoring the fact that 98% of members won't do it because they won't bust a gut for something that isn't a problem. If Copyrights became a big problem Kevan would have pulled the plug by now but he hasn't. I can't believe this conversation has come up again and again and Akule's still fighting the battle. It ain't gonna happen. As for citations, I'm interested by it, I want to know the scope of what POD means by citations and where they would be applied, but really I'm sceptical of any of this occurring. It's a random wiki for a random web based game that has a handful of followers, why bring this aspect of redundant legality into it? You have to draw the line of overzealous behaviour somewhere, and that's coming from mr. serious op here. -- 23:33, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Yes, how dare the sysops follow Kevan's wishes. For shame Akule. For Shame. After all, he asked the sysops to work together to hash out something, but not surprisingly, people did not do it, because they could care less about him. Oh, and for the record (which you obviously don't care and didn't read), I didn't bring it up I responded to it and was invited here. I then said we should just cite the images with the Template:Copyright and then see where we stand. But hey, jumping to conclusions is what you do best, right? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:42, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Why do you even do any sysop work? I mean, with all of the vandalism cases, deletion cases, protections, and move requests, that shit must be endless. "Even with everyone one board it would take straight weeks to complete maintain, and that's ignoring the fact that 98% of members won't do it because they won't bust a gut for something that isn't a problem."
Now, I will point out that a few users went to UDWiki:Image_Categorisation, went through all of those very same images, categorized them, and have no problem keeping up on it. So I'll call BS on this argument. What else do you have? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:57, 28 June 2010 (BST)
As for what the citations entail, just go to Template:Copyright and read the directions. That's it. Gosh, that seems so hard, huh? If we had done that for the Mall images for the Battle of the Bear Pit we'd still have them. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 00:07, 29 June 2010 (BST)
are you clinically retarded? Why are you still using the "we" argument with image categorisation? As far as I care Ross, Nubis and Vantar did the biggest mass and I am the one who has kept the images categorised for most of the last 18 months. So don't you fucking start using our own work against us in an argument. "I do dick around this place but I KNOW heaps of other people will do the work I intend to throw at them" doesn't work, least of all on me. Kevan is indifferent unless someone kicks up a stink about copyright. I agree with this- the second someone makes a fuss about a user copyrighting their shit, then we take it down no question. Otherwise, just spamming a generic copyright notice on images solves shit all and there is no way in god's hell that it's going to work if any more effort is required, so why bother? Stop frothing too, if I may suggest. Honestly, if all you want is for template:copyright to be on every copyright image you can do it yourself without preaching in ineffectual discussion forums like this for someone else to. -- 04:36, 29 June 2010 (BST)
Dude, no offense, but scale it back a bit. I know Akules getting to you, but this was a fairly civil conversation until the last little bit here. And really, the only one who's getting bent out of shape about it is you. Not to mention Akule already explained to you that this has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with me.... And all of this is the first I've heard of it. Just pull it back a bit. -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 04:42, 29 June 2010 (BST)
Don't you tell me what to do. You've already you're demonstrated via crappy arbitration and self-bans what your level of "going too far" is. It's a laugh thinking Akule's getting to me when I'm just doing my job/expressing opinion when he throws random insults and kneejerk reactions/ad homonyms both here and on A/VB. People below me agreed with me on both pages, but Akule runs around with his arms in the air screaming "retard" around like it's the insult of the day. Don't you get involved either Poodle, if you want to see how someone can get to me, you may keep posting. -- 04:47, 29 June 2010 (BST)
And BTW Akule, I never said you started this, dingbat. So much for learning to read :/ -- 08:31, 29 June 2010 (BST)
Oh?
DanceDanceRevolution said:
Not this shit again... Remove/Cite copyright material? In 2005? Yes. In 2010? No. The amount of copyrighted material used without permission on this wiki is catastrophically large. Even with everyone one board it would take straight weeks to complete, and that's ignoring the fact that 98% of members won't do it because they won't bust a gut for something that isn't a problem. If Copyrights became a big problem Kevan would have pulled the plug by now but he hasn't. I can't believe this conversation has come up again and again and Akule's still fighting the battle.
Either you are referring to the fact that I brought it up again, or you are completely baffled as to how someone completely different from me could bring this up. I imagine that if you were referring to Poodle, you would have said something to him instead of coming into this the way you did. Regardless, if various people keep bringing up copyright as an issue, then perhaps it should actually be addressed instead of being swept under the rug. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:56, 29 June 2010 (BST)
Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks he's a dumbshit... -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 02:01, 30 June 2010 (BST)
I'll tell you one thing Poodle, You're the dumbfuck around here, a class A, retarded dumbfuck. Everyone thinks it and I don't understand how you use little things like this open discussion to fuel your ego believing you are actually addressing little "issues" or "options" with the wiki when you really, really aren't. I guess if you're going to follow me around in my discussions calling me a dumbshit then I guess I won't have to hold off on what I think about you in all your endeavours here. I've had no problem treating you in a particularly indifferent way since you're retarded self-harm self-ban masturbation period but if you want that over, keep pressing my buttons. I'm almost pleased. -- 02:12, 30 June 2010 (BST)
Can you please stop taking every sentence to the utmost personal degree and actually just read it as if it's a user tired of having this topic brought up? Maybe if you were capable of that you'd be able to understand. It's not a matter to be taken up with Poodle, he wants an open discussion, I'm giving him an opinion here. And no. Just because one guy "brings it up" doesn't meant it should be addressed. The rest of the wiki below is disagreeing with it, as they always do, yada yada obvious obvious etc. But I guess you'd rather cling onto this argument to defend your personal honour further. I've made my point and I've had many agree with me, but if you want to prove more that the "copyright issue" is literally all you are about, then please, take the last word from my ever-evil mouth. -- 02:12, 30 June 2010 (BST)

Well to me, it seems that Kevan, by no means, is opposed to have a policy like this in place. People have been trying for years (so says DDR) to get this enacted. It seems to me that this would have a place here on the wiki. That said, and please don't take this wrong DDR, but do you really not know what I mean by citation? I know we all come from different countries and what not, and don't know what things are like in schools where you live. Where I'm at, everything that could be related back to a specific source had to have a citation for it. Otherwise, it had to be your own unique wording/phrasing/paper/whatever. Again, I imagine different countries are different with copyrights.... and that different schools do different things. Do you know what I'm talking about? I could set up an example for you if you'd like.... -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 02:34, 29 June 2010 (BST)

Sigh. I said, and meant, where and too what scope. Not what a citation is. I want to know where these citations occur, images? locations? descriptions? signatures? references? names? userpage content? See, on UDWiki, of all content in that list I just said, images are the only real copyright problem, hence why I wanted to know the scope and target of where you were thinking. -- 14:15, 29 June 2010 (BST)
I'd kindly direct you to the original conversation that started it all on Mis's talk page. And say specifically, images. I'd also like you to take note of the section I posted below.--Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 04:06, 30 June 2010 (BST)

As DDR correctly pointed out, this project (whether we're talking about citations for all copyrighted material or deleting all copyrighted material) is far too large to undertake at this point in UDWiki's life, so, I think we can throw out the idea of going through and citing or deleting all existing copyrighted images. There's also a question of what we're trying to accomplish. If we're trying to shield UDWiki and Kevan from all possibility of incident, we'll likely need to delete the wiki and start from a blank slate since there's no way we can tell whether or not names, images, or whatever else are copyrighted or trademarked at this point. I think that we shouldn't be looking to prevent situations any more than we already do (especially since there haven't been many anyway), but rather that we should be looking to handle any situations that may arise. I think that goes in line with what Kevan was saying anyway.

I know that the US has "safe harbor" laws that protect places such as UDWiki in situations where its users upload infringing content, so long as UDWiki works with copyright holders to remove or license the content once they have received notification of the infringement. Can a UK user comment on whether or not such laws exist over there? If so, then all we really need is a new scheduled deletion allowing sysops to delete copyrighted material in cases of a C&D or a notification of infringement being sent. Nothing more than that. We also might strengthen the wording of the copyright text on the upload page.

We could also make a policy allowing for the deletion of pages or files that show a blatant disregard for copyright (e.g. brand names, corporate logos, etc. that have been directly ripped with no modification), since if we're complicit in the act of copyright infringement (i.e. we're aware of it and/or encouraging it) UDWiki can still possibly be held liable, even with safe harbor laws, for the actions of its users. We wouldn't go hunting for them, since that's not our job, but if users who feel strongly about the subject (I'm looking at a few of you here) were to bring them forward, then we could handle them appropriately, I guess. So long as we dealt with the most obvious ones ourselves and had policies in place to allow us to work with copyright holders, we should be fine, I think, and none of that seems too unreasonable.

And it goes without saying that IANAL. Aichon 04:08, 29 June 2010 (BST)

I am one. Look below in order to see more information on Safe Harbor laws for Copyrights. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:56, 29 June 2010 (BST)

I like what you've suggested. Perhaps we could strengthen the copy right warning. How would you suggest it be worded? As it pertains to the stuff we currently have regarding copy rights, do we consider this sort of thing policy already, or not? I'm also all for a new SD criteria for blatant copyright infringement, similar to what you mentioned. Would it really pass though? I wouldn't think so. At that, everything I'm talking about here, everything I had intended to have come up in this conversation has. And really, I'm not looking to have anything applied retroactivly, but just as something to do going forward, if it's even possable (or plausable). -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 04:30, 29 June 2010 (BST)

I don't believe Akule (and others) is trying to make this an issue AGAIN! Of coures Kevan cares if he is sued, of course any image that causes a problem will be deleted... wait, thats it! How about wording it:

  • "Due to the inherent difficulty in policing a wiki such as this are unable to prevent copyrighted images being posted, however, we will speedily remove any copyrighted image which the owner requests removed" Problem solved and the wiki lawyers can go back to bed. --Honestmistake 08:07, 29 June 2010 (BST)
Bloody oath. Sept for the second paragraph because it's already a scheduled deletion under that exact specification I believe. -- 08:31, 29 June 2010 (BST)

DDR has is right about all of this. It's just a monumental task that we could never accomplish, and it's not an immediate or foreseeable problem. If a copyright holder requested an image to be removed, we would just speedy delete the thing and then delete on sight if it ever came up again. When you upload an image now there is a message telling you not to upload copyrighted material. That should pretty much cover Kevan's ass legally, coupled with the fact that any offending images will be deleted without incident.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 13:12, 29 June 2010 (BST)

Yet the same monumental task was undertaken for categorizing images. I'm not asking you or DDR to go around and add the Template:Copyright to all of the images. I'm just saying that those who are interested in participating can just go around and make sure that all of the copyrighted images are cited, just like what was done for UDWiki:Image Categorisation. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:56, 29 June 2010 (BST)

As others mentioned before, I really don't see a problem, so there is no need to make one out of it. Just the mention in the edit box alone is enough ("DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"), and anything that breaks copyright can be simply be specified and deleted without further conflict. Why complicate matters? --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 13:27, 29 June 2010 (BST)

The problem arises that sysops ignore that box and the UD Copyright policy. Kevan even said:
Kevan said:
All upload and edit pages have boldface warnings against posting copyrighted work, and always have. --Kevan 15:18, 30 August 2006 (BST)
So if anyone was to submit any copyrighted work for deletions, it would be ignored or struck. Feel free to try it, and you'll see what I mean. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:56, 29 June 2010 (BST)

Let's Learn Copyright Law Yet Again

Seeing as how we have misconceptions on how things work, I guess it is time for me to explain a few things again. I imagine few of you will read this, so I suppose it is a waste of time. Regardless, I will continue.

Safe Harbor & Common Misconceptions

When referring to Safe Harbor and Copyright Law, you are usually referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and more specifically, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act or DMCA 512. The provisions for safe harbors under DMCA 512 are referring to ISPs, various search engines, and OSP sites like YouTube. The idea is that a web host or DSL provider is not automatically responsible for breaching copyright if one of their hosted sites is sharing downloaded music/video/images/etc. Before this provision, anyone remotely associated with the site was hammered with lawsuits, even though they really had nothing to do with the copyright infringement. These sites are covered provided that they:

  1. have adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and
  2. accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.

This means that a OSP must have create a policy that requires that the OSP must police their site for copyright infringement and require that users who violate copyright law to be banned from using the site. If the site does NOT have such a policy and does NOT police their site, then they can be considered ineligible for being covered as a safe harbor.

How Does This Apply To The UDWiki?

It doesn't. The DMCA is a US law and only applies to sites hosted in the United States. Urban Dead is hosted in the UK and is only subject to UK laws, rendering the whole argument moot.

End Result: The UDWiki does not qualify for DMCA 512 as a Safe Harbor. If we WERE hosted in the US (which we are not), then in order to be covered by DMCA 512, the sysop team would not only have to actively follow the UD Copyright Policy, but would have to ban users from the wiki who violate the policy.

Fair Use Dealing & Common Misconceptions

Fair Use sets aside certain actions where the use of copyrighted material is NOT considered infringing upon the copyrighted work, but this is provided that the following steps are taken:

  1. The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair use.
  2. That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.
  3. That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.

The actual specifics of what is deemed acceptable is governed by the individual nations and are subject to that nations natural laws.

How Does This Apply To The UDWiki?

The typical citation of Fair Use is a provision of US Copyright Law, which (not surprisingly) does NOT apply to the UK. Under the UK system, Fair Use is called Fair Dealing and has a very different set of rules and allowances. The actions that do not violate copyright are as follows:

  1. Research and private study
  2. Instruction or examination
  3. Criticism or review
  4. News reporting
  5. Incidental inclusion
  6. Accessibility for someone with a visual impairment

Under UK Copyright Law and Fair Dealing, there is NO provision for parody. Thus, if we wanted to be included under Fair Dealing, we would have to only use copyrighted works for the actions above.

End result: The UKWiki is NOT covered by Fair Use/Fair Dealing, and even if it was, we would need to cite the material by quoting the source and the author.

Responses

Please put responses to the overall subsection of "Lets Learn Copyright Law Yet Again" here, as I may continue adding more sections as people request/incorrectly argue copyright law. Thanks. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:56, 29 June 2010 (BST)

This is becoming more than what people think we need. Referencing the current copyright notices, and everything that currently exists, that is used as a reference, notice or otherwise,.... is there someway we could combine them to make them a policy? And don't get me wrong, I already consider them policy... but I'm looking for something that specifically says "Policy". -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 04:09, 30 June 2010 (BST)
Well, I imagine what it depends on is if people actually want to enforce the Copyright Policy or not. If we do, then I would say that a formal policy should be made. If not, then I would say that we set up a group to go back and cite all of the copyrighted images (perhaps tagging all of the images with a custom category for Unknown Copyright, so we know what we have left). My assumption is that the majority of users won't care about it, and if the sysops won't back the policy (regardless if Kevan wants us to make the policy or not), then it's moot. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:27, 30 June 2010 (BST)
That'd be the way to do this, however, I must insist that having sysop support means nothing in terms of productability or support, as long as you had a group of willing participants to do this, you wouldn't even need a policy. 90% of the image copyright project could be done with no red tape at all. -- 02:33, 1 July 2010 (BST)
You're absolutly correct. Truth be known, I would like to see a policy, so there is an official stance in the future. So we could technically "crack down" on people, and force the necessary citations. Truth be known though... I don't want this causing escalations either. Basically, just something that says "Hey, tell us who this belongs to bitch!", and when they don't, we say hey,... you got X amount of time, or the image is coming down.... or whatever we decide. - Poodle of Doom 04:30, 1 July 2010 (BST)
That post of mine about sysop support was referring to if we were doing a policy. If you read my original post above you would have seen:
Akule said:
We categorized the wiki. I don't see why we can't use the UDWiki:Copyright Project page to do the same, but just for copyrights. --Akule School's back in session. 22:44, 28 June 2010 (BST)
Which states exactly what you said right there, but a day and a half ago. Perhaps you might understand why I have stated before that you aren't actually reading anything that is being posted, but are instead just assuming things. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:37, 2 July 2010 (BST)
My god you're retarded. Sysop support still means dick when making a policy, it's popular vote, the only one who can veto the policy discussion system is Kevan, you know this, why the fuck are you still insisting it. And no, I don't think you understand what I was saying. "as long as you had a group of willing participants to do this". You don't, and won't, have enough willing participants, though this POV is irrelevant to my above point. The point I was trying to make was hypothetically you wouldn't even need to go through Policy Discussion, I wasn't saying it was a logically possible solution to this, I was, essentially, helping Poodle along on this policy even though I don't think it will go anywhere. You seem to think it's an actual option. I guess in the broad view of this post, the point I'm loosely trying to convey here is how about you stop taking everything so fucking personally and actually address these posts as if someone isn't trying to turn your words against you (which is the way you strangely seem to react every time). Honestly, if I realised you pounced so hard over such shit Akule, I'd have kept away from you at a 9 page radius on this wiki. No wonder you could never handle Grim's shit. -- 09:09, 2 July 2010 (BST)
All of this still doesn't address the question of if there's a safe harbor analog in the UK, which is what I specifically asked for when I brought up the US safe harbor stuff. Also, as a matter of curiosity, why would a site like YouTube get off the hook anyway and not a site like this? Aichon 05:53, 30 June 2010 (BST)
Because Google has shitloads of money to fight a lawsuit for years, and Kevan doesn't.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:22, 30 June 2010 (BST)
That's not what I meant. I was asking why the law was on YouTube's side (which it is, as per the safe harbor laws that I was talking about, which protect YouTube) but wouldn't be on the side of a site like UDWiki (assuming a hypothetical scenario where the UDWiki-like site was based in the US, of course). It's a theoretical question as a matter of curiosity, not a real-world application question. Aichon 08:44, 30 June 2010 (BST)
If we were in the US, and wanted to be considered to be a safe harbor, we would have to not only have a policy that addressed copyright, but we would have to police the wiki and enforce it as well. So we'd have to actually vandal ban people who violated the Copyright Policy and delete the offending image, and if the person continued to violate the policy, we would have to ban them. In addition, we would have to cite each and every image with the picture information and author copyright. Wikipedia does this (feel free to create an account and make an "avatar" for your user page and upload an image, and you'll see what I mean), and if you notice on every wiki built by MediaWiki, they all have that blurb about copyright. Basically, if you want to be protected, you have to actually enforce copyright law. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:27, 30 June 2010 (BST)
Excellent question. Currently the UK does not have Safe Harbor laws for copyright (they do have one for hate speech). There is an agreement in the works for creating a universal standard for copyrights and their enforcement, called The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). In one version of the drafts, they talk about creating safe harbors for the UK. It would not be as comprehensive as the US version, but since the US is working in talks on it, they might switch over to ACTA whenever it is hashed out. For those who are interested in learning more, here is a link for the EU page on it, and here is a link to a leaked version of the rough draft. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:27, 30 June 2010 (BST)

tldnr--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 12:57, 30 June 2010 (BST)

I might add that, since I'm in the middle of taking a graduate-level cyberlaw class, there are a few European-based copyright laws and initiatives that could be reviewed for our use here:

  • World Trade Organization -- The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
  • The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
  • The European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD)
  • The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)
  • The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty

It might also be helpful to know what the nationality demographic of the UDWiki userbase is. Asheets 17:52, 30 June 2010 (BST)

Nice. Have you been reading some of the progress on ACTA? As for the nationality, it would be nice to know, but the copyright laws that the wiki is subject to is the UK, since that is where the servers reside. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:27, 30 June 2010 (BST)
I mention nationality because us Americans have this thing about ignoring and not ratifying various WIPO, EUCD, and Berne provisions. Makes some of the userbase here a little resistant to change. Asheets 16:55, 1 July 2010 (BST)
True. At the very least, if those users are going to pretend that we are subject to US Fair Use law, we need to cite all of the copyrighted images properly in order to be covered. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:27, 2 July 2010 (BST)

----> That way,... not <------- that way,...

I just want to make it clear that I'm not looking for something to be retroactive. I'm looking for this to be progressive. What's already here is here. If it's wrong, and someone wantes to complain about it, we'll deal with it when it comes up. Generally speaking though, this would pertain to anything after a policy is written and passed. That's what I'm looking to get out of this. -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 04:04, 30 June 2010 (BST)

Adding from ideas from Aichon's post above. Going from here on leaves tens of thousands of infringing images on the wiki that were added before this policy were enacted (hypothetically) leaving both the idea of a "safe kevan" and "copyright-clean wiki" behind, and IMO they are the only two goals we would want to achieve. -- 08:19, 30 June 2010 (BST)
All I am going for at the moment is to have all of the images be properly cited. That way if they do change fair dealing in the UK to be like fair use in the US, the wiki would actually be covered. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:31, 30 June 2010 (BST)
I know it's a project, but I'm willing to help look over images, and source them as necessary. - Poodle of Doom 04:24, 1 July 2010 (BST)
Okay. What sort of policy are you thinking of? Creating something that prevents users from uploading copyrighted images without permission? If we were going to do something like that, I would go for the idea that would likely pass, which would be to enable off-site linking to images, that way they don't actually reside on the UD server. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:31, 30 June 2010 (BST)
More like just a simple citation. Like © Kevan Davis, 2005-2010 at the bottom of an URBAN DEAD image... something very simplistic. - Poodle of Doom 04:24, 1 July 2010 (BST)

How about starting off with a very simple policy?

Something like this:

  • If a demonstrated copyright holder wants his/her stuff removed, we will remove it without question or argument.
  • If there is any reasonable assumption that a copyright holder would want his/her stuff removed if he/she knew it was here, we will remove it without question or argument.

This is basic, common law stuff, in my opinion. Asheets 17:02, 1 July 2010 (BST)

This will work for me. I would would like one thing added to it though. Under the second point, if there is a citation of sorts, even if a simple one, I'd like to see a slightly (ever so slightly) less argument on the situation. Also, I'd like to define reasonable assumption. Is that possable? - Poodle of Doom 23:46, 1 July 2010 (BST)
OK, I would say that under "reasonable assumption", something like a registered trademark. I seem to remember a picture of an Arby's restaurant sign being on the arbitration page a long time ago. That would have to go under point 2's guideline. Asheets 23:53, 1 July 2010 (BST)
As to your other point, I'm ok with adding the following bullet:
  • Citations for copyrighted materials will be made whenever possible. Asheets 23:55, 1 July 2010 (BST)
Yes, you are correct about the Arby's sign. It was changed after this deletion request, due to it being displayed in the Template:Arbys. Sonny changed it from the logo to a picture he took of his sandwich (which he took himself), and updated the Image:Arbys.jpg. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:24, 2 July 2010 (BST)
I agree with Poodle, but I don't know if citing the images should be a part of the policy. In a policy, I would submit the first part "If a demonstrated copyright holder wants his/her stuff removed, we will remove it without question or argument." as a modification/addition of speedy deletion criteria 7. Then make the second part either a new criterion for speedy deletions, or perhaps a part B for speedy deletion criteria 7. For citing new images, I would just mention that in addition to categorizing them, we would prefer that uploaders cite them as well as categorize them (if not, then whomever categorizes it can cite it). If we can't find the correct copyright citation easily, we could use a category called Uncited images and then ask the author to properly cite the image. If they never cite the image, then we can do something about it, I suppose. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:24, 2 July 2010 (BST)
So far I like how everything has turned out. I think this is an easily do-able policy. Also, if images are clearly tradmarked and/or copyrighted, but aren't, how would we wish to pursue such an avenue of them not having cited it? I really don't want anyone getting in any sort of trouble for this. It is a trivial matter... I mean really, the image could be deleted easily enough, amongst other avenues. - Poodle of Doom 01:36, 2 July 2010 (BST)
Yeah, I would say that we just delete the image if people can't find the citation information, or we can't get ahold of the author after say a month or two. I wouldn't make any vandalism cases over it, unless the author starts having some sort of an edit war by continually putting it up after we take it down. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:41, 2 July 2010 (BST)
At this point, it's really no longer about that. The imagest would stay up. The only reason they'd be brought down is because of a suspected copy right infringment that might be an issue, where they'd be speedily deleted. That said, if a user resubmits deleted pages like you suggest, that's grounds for vandalism regardless of the pages affected. Moving on, what would we do if they upload an image, there aren't any suspected issues, but we know of a copy right (like the Arbies Logo) being submited? We should add a citation if we have it, and if we don't, and again, there are no suspected issues, aside from being contacted by the copyright holder themselves,..., how should we handle the lack of a citation after we categorize it as not having one? Obviously we'd petition the uploader, but if there is lack of a response, or no citation added, what would come next?- Poodle of Doom 02:01, 2 July 2010 (BST)
Provided that we waited several months, are unable to contact the uploader, and unable to cite it, there are a few things we could do:
  • We could keep it in the uncited images category until someone can cite it.
  • We could just delete it.
  • We could replace it with a similar image that we can cite (as close as we can get).
What do you think? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:15, 2 July 2010 (BST)
I like option one. Number two isn't an option, unless it's unused, which is already schedualed. On number three,... we could just used said image source for our citation, possably. Who'd know the difference? I'd ere to option letter number one. - Poodle of Doom 02:35, 2 July 2010 (BST)
That's reasonable. It'd at least be a step in the direction of working to get them cited. The only reason why I suggested the second option is because that is typically what wikipedia does with images that they can't cite. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:46, 2 July 2010 (BST)

That it?

I think that's about it. Anyone got anything they want to add? - Poodle of Doom 04:35, 2 July 2010 (BST)

Discussion 2

It seems we need to add to the discussion. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 00:37, 27 October 2010 (BST)

Explanation or "What Gives, Akule?"

I should explain how this relates to the previous discussion above. It should be noted that it is considered hypocritical to argue for someone to do something (such as for Sears to cite the UDWiki for Zamgrh or honor copyright law) when the person or site doing the arguing doesn't do the same. Effectively, we, the UDWiki don't cite information, nor do we honor copyright law.

Why should we expect others to do the same?

Responses for "Explanation or "What Gives, Akule?"

Please put your responses for the subsection Explanation or "What Gives, Akule?, down here. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:19, 27 October 2010 (BST)

Plagiarism Vs. Copyright Infringement

Plagiarism is not a legal term, it is used more as an ethical/moral term. In legal terms, Plagiarism is covered legally under Copyright Infringement.

In effect, those arguing for the lawsuit or citation are effectively claiming that this wiki was the first ever to have "zombie speak". Thus this wiki must be cited in each and every instance of zombies communicating to one another. Unfortunately, a quick Google search shows that there are many films with zombies speaking. I shall list a few (and there are plenty more) that were present before Urban Dead existed:

  • King of the Zombies (1941)
  • Shaun of the Dead (2004)
  • Land of the Dead (2005)

If we are to lend credence to their argument, it appears that the contributors of Zamgrh "plagiarized" various works when they completed this dictionary, and neglected to cite anyone, including Kevan, who gave them the means to make it.

The concept of zombies speaking is not new. Certainly, the contributors to Zamgrh were not the first to come up with the idea of zombies talking (as I have proven), so the idea that Sears "must cite the UDwiki" is a double-standard. As Achion noted, the Sears version of zombies speaking utilizes the letter 'e', which should already set it apart from Zamgrh.

Regardless, this argument is actually for the violation of Copyright Infringement, not for Plagiarism.

Responses for "Plagiarism Vs. Copyright Infringement"

Please put your responses for the subsection Plagiarism Vs. Copyright Infringement, down here. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:58, 27 October 2010 (BST)

You Cannot Copyright A Language

I cannot make this any clearer. I shall now defend this statement.

Language is a System

US Copyright Law states under code 102, section b: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

A quick check of a dictionary (I chose Merriam-Webster's version) affirms that language is a system by which people communicate.

Facts Cannot Be Copyrighted

US Copyright Law states code 102, section b: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Under the US Copyright FAQ it states: Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

The moment Zamgrh stated that Harmanz = Humans, it stated a fact. Harmanz = Humans.

Thus, the individual words of Zamgrh are not copyrightable. You cannot sue a movie over Copyright Infringement for saying the word Harmanz, you cannot sue Sears over Copyright Infringement for the idea that zombies can speak, much less have a written language, and you cannot sue anyone for speaking Zamgrh.

Responses for "You Cannot Copyright A Language"

Please put your responses for the subsection You Cannot Copyright A Language, down here. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:58, 27 October 2010 (BST)

Mostly, I think this is being blown out of proportion. This wasn't a 'demand' to be cited for something we 'own', but a movement asking to be credited for something that we definately developed. Perhaps a good comparison would be looking at works of art. Swiss artist Hans Giger is markedly, undeniably influenced by Irish artist Francis Bacon - and acknowledges that fact personally, just in the way that Bacon admitted his huge debt of influence to Flemish artist Hieronymous Bosch. Is Necronom IV a 'plagiarised' version of Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion? No. Is Three Studies in turn plagiarised from Garden of Earthly Delights? No. Are they clearly influenced by these peices, in a manner that, upon publication, should not be denied? Of course. And to the credit of all involved, any question put forward as to this influence was affirmed - and it's this same affirmation that we're asking for. Lawsuits and legal ground really don't factor into this - not because we have no standing, but because we have no desire to try. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 02:13, 27 October 2010 (BST)
Well, the topic So, you gonna sue a bitch? and the following discussion over suing over Plagiarism suggests that people want to bring lawsuits into the picture. That is the myth that I am trying to dispel. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:22, 27 October 2010 (BST)
When I say "we", I mean Siege on Sears mostly. Plus I think Anime's first question was mostly rhetorical. Any question of legal proceedings is entirely baseless on behalf of this community. I've seen characters in Peter Cook sketches with more legs to stand on. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 02:24, 27 October 2010 (BST)
I spoke with Anime about it. He was curious to know the legal ramifications and summoned me. I gave him a quick explanation and he was satisfied. I saw the beginnings of a few new arguments, so I decided to hammer the message home. I'll expand on it as needed. As for the claim that Sears put a link to the UDWiki as a part of a "citation", I believe that to be wrong. My assumption is that they probably got a few of the emails and were like: "Oh, look, some kooks have made their own zombie language. Let's link to it, to give our customers a better experience." I come to that conclusion because they didn't cite the UDWiki at all (in the way one would cite it), but instead just linked to it with a picture that had nothing to do with Urban Dead or Zamgrh, much like they linked to the zombie's twitter account and the youtube video. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:31, 27 October 2010 (BST)

Big fat lol. I agree (I never wanted anything taken this far even in discussion) but for those who need to read it, here's hoping they do. -- LEMON #1 03:22, 27 October 2010 (BST)

Good heavens, Akule...Frankly I think it is a bitch move to sue or ask for royalties. But it was a bitch move to expect us to lay down, open our wallets and smile while they pillage our ideas. While you certainly can't copyright a language, the Sears campaign is not just language.

Regarding their "citation" via linking the zombie lexicon: I'm of the opinion that they didn't name UD, the wiki or Kevan specifically because they could get away with it. Pretty sure Kevan owns a copyright on the UD logo and I've yet to hear anything from him about this. Anyway, I do have a question for you Akule: What about code? --Amber Waves of Pain 14:22, 27 October 2010 (BST)

while they pillage our ideas... like you were here when the language was created. Or even knew it had a name of its own before this whole fuss started! People, please. Smile and enjoy the Sears campaign. Even if we could claim ownership of the language (which we can't) it would be completely hipocrytical for us to ask them for recognition when so many of us have uploaded copyrighted work into the wiki without giving due credit. And hey! they already added a link back to the wiki, so why are you guys still complaining ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 04:59, 28 October 2010 (BST)
The difference is if someone came to us and explained that our copyright breaches with no attribution was a big deal, we'd rectify it (it's policy to do so), whereas it is very likely Sears will ignore our bleating. Having said that, I generally agree with what you said. -- LEMON #1 05:46, 28 October 2010 (BST)
Unless there is a negative PR campaign against them that attracts attention to this site. Then, who knows what they might do. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:36, 29 October 2010 (BST)
Hagnat! :D --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:36, 29 October 2010 (BST)
The reason why I put this discussion up wasn't because I assumed that the Seige on Sears was asking to sue Sears over the copyright. I only put it up because some people have mentioned the idea of a lawsuit and there was some confusion over copyrights. I basically wanted to nip that in the bud before it got out of hand. As for code, are you referring to codes as cryptography or code as in programming? The programming languages themselves are not copyrightable (although there has been lots of arguments to the contrary). Copyrighting the way a program is designed is only copyrightable via implementation (how it is made) or various expressions (such as graphics, icons, etc.), but the general mechanics behind it is not (Ref: Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.). For ciphers, it is almost the same as for languages, as it is a system of conveying facts, just like a language. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:36, 29 October 2010 (BST)

Just a quick point of law - as the UD servers (and hence where our claim would originate) are based in the UK, and Sears are (Presumably) based in the US, which law do we use? I presume US, as that's (Presumably) where the action took place. Basically, which would it be, just for personal interest? I've just been in this for UD publicity, tbh.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 15:33, 27 October 2010 (BST)

While we're at it, is Kevan liable for people putting things like: "The Zombian language was primarily taken from the Zamgrh language" on the wiki without any real evidence?--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 15:50, 27 October 2010 (BST)
At least in America, no, websites are not responsible for what's posted on them. --VVV RGPBMBCAWS 00:25, 28 October 2010 (BST)
Well, if I'm correct, since the action would be taking place in the UK, where the servers are, it would be subject to UK law, whereas Sears action would be subject to US law, as its servers are in the US.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 00:26, 28 October 2010 (BST)
Correct. If UD was going to try and take Sears to court, it would likely occur in the US, since their servers and the company is based in the US. If Sears was taking UD to court, it would be in the UK, as the servers reside in the UK. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:36, 29 October 2010 (BST)
Factually incorrect. You are responsible for things that you have on your website, even if other users are the ones who put them there. Hence why each and every mediawiki wiki has a boilerplate about copyrights, such as the one you see each time you open the edit window. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:36, 29 October 2010 (BST)
Where do the safe harbor laws come in (I think that's the right term, but I may be incorrect)? The ones that give ISPs and content providers some leeway in terms of having to police the legality (or maybe just copyright) of what their users are sending/uploading? I thought that some of those laws also applied to places such as message boards, YouTube, and the like, so long as they reacted appropriately to notices of infringing content. Maybe it was part of the DMCA? Not sure, but IANAL as you are. ;) Aichon 05:32, 29 October 2010 (BST)
Another side benefit of having the discussion on this page. All you have to is scroll up to see the section on Safe Harbor. ;) --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 17:52, 29 October 2010 (BST)
Thanks, Akule. Seems it's an ongoing point of curiosity (and forgetfulness) for me, since I had questions about it before as well. Aichon 18:02, 29 October 2010 (BST)
No worries. The middle paragraph that I added in this edit explains it further. I should update the Copyright page, make a simplified section (not everyone enjoys reading dry legal pages), add links to International_Copyright, and make a FAQ along with a section on popular myths about Copyright law. Also, my arguments are currently all over the place, so I should move them to one easy location (more than likely a subsection of my page). I'll probably start there. I also might petition to add a link to the Copyright page on the Copyright Policy page, in order to help new users understand just what all that entails. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 19:31, 29 October 2010 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements