UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Copyrights Update 1

I'm tired of people questioning whether content on the wiki falls under commercial use or not the goal of this policy is to clearly define whether it is or it is not. There may be other changes to be made to UDWiki:Copyrights but those changes can be covered in other policies. Copyrights have historically been a drama inducing topic on the wiki but lets try and keep this civil. - Vantar 05:49, 9 September 2007 (BST)

This

Seems fine to me. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:53, 9 September 2007 (BST)

I'd vote "yes" on it if i could.--'BP^Tmz 06:10, 9 September 2007 (BST)

I'd vote against this. The Urban Dead wiki is not a commercial site. And this policy would simply destroy all user templates and many group pages that use copyright owned images. I'd say that we stick with the {{Copyright}} template and work things out with it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 06:14, 9 September 2007 (BST)

I didn't know that template existed...

Changed my mind. This is unneccessary. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 06:17, 9 September 2007 (BST)

I say allow all the normal exceptions to copyright laws here. parody, fair use, etc. --The Grimch ^U! 06:20, 9 September 2007 (BST)

I always thought that the UDwiki is an Educational Product concerning Urban Dead, and is not a Commercial property and therefore is considered to be under fair use. --Karlsbad 06:32, 9 September 2007 (BST)

belive it or not, any website that make money (any amount, even a couple bucks) is considered commercial.those ads on the left side of the screen means kevan gets 30 cents each time they shown. and since the servers are located in the UK we dont have a choice about which copyright exceptions we follow. we use the UK's.--'BP^Tmz 06:41, 9 September 2007 (BST)

and I'm not the expert on this, but UK is without those nifty fair use and parody things that us liberal americans have.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 07:01, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Im going to ask kevan to clear this up- Vantar 06:48, 9 September 2007 (BST)

check out this section - UDWiki_talk:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/Citerion_13_-_Speedy_Deletion_of_Copyrighted_Images#Emails_From_Kevan--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 07:03, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Hahaha, I don't think so. Nalikill 13:31, 9 September 2007 (BST)

A possible suggestion: all images are owned by the individuals in question (not by Urban Dead) and that if the individual is violating Copyright Law, then they are personally breaking the law, but not the Urban Dead wiki itself.--ShadowScope 01:28, 10 September 2007 (BST)

I'm okay with that. If Asmik/Asmik Ace wants to bitch me out for using an image from an old SNES game, so be it. If I could, I'd buy the rights to the game and make a new one. :).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:12, 10 September 2007 (BST)

"All content on the Urban Dead wiki is owned by the individual user who created it, and may not be reproduced without their express permission" -- This makes no sense given the fact that it's a wiki and anyone can edit anyone else's work... As far as I'm concerned, I consider anything I write here public domain -- or Kevan's property,...

In fact that is just one of the weird and rather uncool things about this very swiss-cheesey policy....

Also, copyrights are international treaties... Read that section of the title page of a book, sometime... Now, it's very possible that in the UK fair use doesn't exist, I honestly don't know if that is part of the international treaties, or a domestic law. But, it's also possible that it does exist... Someone who actually knows what they're talking about in the UK should deal with this. If the UK doesn't have "fair use" or its equivalent, then just host the wiki in Canada where all the good pirate sites are now :PPP ... --WanYao 06:10, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Also: "The Urban Dead Wiki prohibits the usage of copyrighted material in anyway way shape or form without the express consent of the original owner of such material. This includes the usage of logos and other forms of intellectual property." ... No. No, no, no! Take a look at Myspace. Do you see people, or myspace itself for that matter, getting sued when people stick copyrighted stuff in their profiles? Naaaaaaaah.... This is waaaaaaay too draconian to be a good idea. Find a real lawyer, or hell Kevan -- go to a university Law School and get a FREE consultation with a student legal aid person... I'm sure they have that, my alma mater did.. But don't leave a decision like this to non-experts. If anything, this should be Kevan and Kevan's decision alone... It's his ass on the line... --WanYao 06:20, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Kevan already made the decision from the beginning and later on. In those two links, Kevan has stated that he has it in nice bold text at the bottom of every edit screen. "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" and that a policy needs to be put into place in order to delete copyrighted images that are in violation of wiki polcy (that's right, we need to ask for permission). It's a very simple concept really. Hagnat's {{Copyright}} template isn't asking for permission, which is a violation of a wiki policy and ends up being purposefully misleading. When I mentioned that to him, he didn't care. His only agenda is to obfuscate the issue and not solve it. If he was really working toward the wiki's best interests, he'd heed what Kevan says and follow his direction instead of effectively saying: "I know what is best for the wiki, and Kevan doesn't." --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:00, 12 September 2007 (BST)

TRUFAX --Toejam ^{A Stats Graph} 00:14, 12 September 2007 (BST)

A better idea would be to find the homes of the idiots who keep going insane over Copyrights, take a baseball bat, and pound the heck out of their computers. --Rogue 01:24, 12 September 2007 (BST)

...Or not. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:57, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Dude... thats uncalled for--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 15:08, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Who's going insane now, Rogue.. hmm? 'arm. 19:58, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Learning About Copyright Law and the UK...Again...

Yup. It's all right there under Copyright law of the United Kingdom - Fair dealing and other exceptions. "Fair dealing is much more restricted than the American concept of fair use. It only applies in tightly defined situations, and outside of those situations it is no defence at all against charges of copyright or database right infringement." Now, I know you are wondering. "What are those situations?"

s29.—(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical … for the purposes of research for a non-commercial purpose does not infringe any copyright in the work provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement …

s30.—(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement and provided that the work has been made available to the public.

Since the urban dead website is a commercial site, and the urban dead wiki resides in the UK, it is subject to UK law. It's like the idea that if you are a US citizen and shoot someone in China, you have to follow China's law and not American law. Wherever the location of the infringing material is, that is the laws you have to follow. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:06, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Final Copy

Sorry this has say here so long but the balance between real life and the wiki does alway tilt in favor of the wiki. Reviewing the comments made so far I see a few good points that this policy should clarify before moving this to a vote. Please comment constructively on it

UDWiki:Copyrights the updated proposed change

The Urban Dead wiki is a commercial website. All content on the Urban Dead wiki is owned by the individual user who created it, and may not be reproduced without their express permission.

The Urban Dead Wiki prohibits the usage of copyrighted material in anyway way shape or form without the express consent of the original owner of such material. This includes the usage of logos and other forms of intellectual property. It is not enough for copyrighted material to be labeled as such, the copyright holder needs to grant permission.

---

There is some redundancy in there but I'm hesitant to trim it out. - Vantar 15:20, 17 September 2007 (BST)

I like it... --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:45, 17 September 2007 (BST)

I don't like it, it's Kevan's ass let the policy he wrote stay, this is a thing the community has no business having a say in. --Karek^maps?! 11:49, 18 September 2007 (BST)

People ignore the first policy... what does it matter if its updated. They are going to ignore this policy as well.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 17:05, 18 September 2007 (BST)

The idea of the UDWiki:Copyrights policy is to clearly define what rules are for copywritten material, the reason for updating it is to clarify issues that people are unclear about.I am not trying to change the meaning of the policy I am changing the wording so people stop debateing the same points over and over again when ever copyrighted stuff is put up for deletion. I know that this policy will not stop people form ignoring it but it can make the rules clearer for people - Vantar 17:14, 18 September 2007 (BST)

hey Vantar, why not also add a criterion for deletion into this policy change. Either it's going to pass or its not, based on peoples opinions of copyright, a criterion rider isn't going to change the outcome.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:52, 23 September 2007 (BST)

No need to, such a rider exists else well and has already been approved - Vantar 04:11, 25 September 2007 (BST)

Why the hell don't you base the policy on actual, real world examples, instead of textbook speculations. For one thing, there is something called a DISCLAIMER. In which Kevan says that because of the open nature of the wiki, he cannot be held responsible for everything uploaded to it... However, the users who uploaded the content ARE on record, and ARE responsible. Which doesn't mean that it's a free for all, inappropriate content would still be deleted when found. But it protects Kevan's ass. And it is how things are done in the real world...

If anything, this wiki is closest to a social networking site, and I believe its policies should be modelled after those. To some degree, at least.

But meanwhile we have the very serious issue of ALTERED images. If I take a copyrighted image and alter it with obvious satirical intent, or otherwise use its elements in a new and unique context, is that a violation? I have created a new and unique work... But if it is in violation, then like 2/3 of the music made in the UK is in violation of copyright...

And no one has addressed my VERY SERIOUS issue of copyrights on orginal work I submit to the wiki. The wiki is open, anyone can edit anyone else's pages. How the hell do you enforce intellectual property in that context??? You simply CAN'T. It's akin to putting your work in the public domain, or else (and this needs to be clearly stated) anything submitted becomes Kevan's property. The whole thing about contributors owning their submissions is itself totally unenforcable...

Thus, the policy in its entirety, both versions of it, are quite inadequate.

Akule, you're not a real lawyer. You're in law school, have you even fucking INTERNED??? Please come back with all the law talk after you've actually practiced and lived in the real world, okay?

--WanYao 13:44, 23 September 2007 (BST)

Okay dude, for one, you need to simmer down. I don't know why you are yelling at akule here, Vantar is the one who made this policy, or is yelling at akule the cool thing to do? Disclaimers? Those mean jack diddly and shit. Napster found that out the hard way. Well, for one, you can't take another persons original art and alter it slightly and say its your own. Making mickey mouse green and calling him a zombie is still mickey mouse. Besides, if I recall correctly, there is no such thing as freedom of satire in the UK copyright law, of which we are dealing with here. And another note, your personal User pages are yours, and nobody can edit them without your permission. And whatever you put on there, that is original work, created by you, like say a short story detailing the history of your character, is your property. Though, it would be subject to if Kevan gives people the free license to use the names of the buildings and the city when writing stories based in a zombie apocalypse. Kevan could not outright own whatever you submit, he would have to say that in a terms of service before you even sign up. Just like you do when you goto an amusement park, where it says on the ticket "We may use your likeness, voice, or images without any payment to you."--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:50, 23 September 2007 (BST)

‎	Calm Down
	"This user believes that this discussion has too much drama, and needs to calm down."

 Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  19:00, 23 September 2007 (BST)

-headdesks---THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:09, 23 September 2007 (BST)

I am quite calm, but somewhat frustrated... About copyrights of material submitted to the wiki, I was *not* referring to user pages: I was obviously (so I thought) referring to everything else, like group pages, suburb descriptions, etc. etc. And everything other than user pages works exactly as I described it, does it not? Yes, it does... And as for Akule, he makes himself a target for abuse in this discussion for very obvious reasons that, well, if you haven't figured out why by now... just nevermind... So I don't apologise for "picking on" him... But I really don't believe there is much authentic logic or reality-tested pragmatism (or even real understanding of how copyright laws work, UK-specific, or otherwise) going down in this discussion... I give Akule credit for at least trying to inject some of that, even if he's a huge prig about it all... So, you know what, I'm done with this, sorry... Ciao... --WanYao 00:33, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Okay... one more point... from what I have researched, Akule appears to be correct. In Canada and the US (whose copyright laws and practices I know quite well) most of the "alterations" for non-commercial use that I was talking about (and a private user on the wiki who is altering an image, say, is NOT doing so for commercial gain, regardless of whether UD is a commercial site...) would be legal, falling clearly under "fair use." However, UK copyright is apparently much more strict and -- as Akule has rightly pointed out -- what would be "fair use" in North America would be an infringement in the UK... This is sad, but apparently true. All my other points, however, including calling Akule a prig (look it up) I stand behind 110%... Good luck with this policy. --WanYao 00:51, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Ok when you say serious issue are you referring to you comment about the "All content on the Urban Dead wiki is owned by the individual user who created it, and may not be reproduced without their express permission" line, that line is there to stop people form creating a mirror of the UDWiki, not to keep people form editing the content of the wiki. - Vantar 04:11, 25 September 2007 (BST)