UDWiki talk:Copyright Project
Ok. This is needed. To end this story once and for all. No policies, but a project run by people.
- Copyrighted Images: where can they be used ? how should we give credit for their copyright owners ? what do we do with the current images that are already being used by the community ? (simple deletion IS NOT an option)
- User Created Images: Should a user be able to limit a image he uploaded for his own personal or group use, like what the DEM tries to do with their Ribbons ? Can Kevan use these images in the game ? (even though i believe he won't, but it's a matter worth to be discussed)
This project should also explain, in a short version, what is copyright, what is the difference between US, UK and International Copyright Law, and what could happen to Urban Dead (and Kevan, most importantly) if we don't obey the law.
errr... i will continue this later...dinner is ready, kkthxbbq--People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:46, 27 September 2007 (BST)
- Sounds like it should be a policy. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 02:08, 27 September 2007 (BST)
- Sounds like... policies suck, too much trouble and people involved. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:18, 27 September 2007 (BST)
- Don't misunderstand me, I'm just saying that if you want something as this to be considered a "rule", then you HAVE to go to A/PD. If you don't, then it's just a guideline of sorts, but has no real weight whatsoever. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:24, 27 September 2007 (BST)
- Do no annoy me with bureaucracy right now. If this needs to go on A/PD, fine, it will on it's due time. Right now, this project needs to define itself. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:34, 27 September 2007 (BST)
- Reciprocate. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:03, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Beyond setting straight what should be followed by Urban Dead Wiki in Copyright Terms, and explain a little bit of Copyright, we should define which are the Community pages, and find alternative images for any copyrighted images found in them. Members of this project should also warn users about copyright when they try to use copyrighted images in these pages. The {{Copyright}} template should also be added to ALL copyrighted images. Right now, only a great deal of images have it, but not all of them. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:34, 27 September 2007 (BST)
I think that the template mentioned is enough. We don't profit of any of the copyrighted or possibly copyrighted images users post, so that should suffice. The community has spoken pretty clearly in past deletion requests that they don't want possibly copyrighted images deleted, so unless Kevan takes direct action towards forbidding us to use them, I say it's within the spirit of this wiki. No copyright holder is going to sue over two or three images randomly posted, at least not before asking for removal (happened only in one ocassion, and because they were told), and this argument is backed up because the site is not specially fond of any copyrighted product whatsoever, so we are no unlicensed fansite here. About UDWiki:Copyrights, a brief rework of the wording should suffice, and maybe a change to this system message page as well. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:03, 27 September 2007 (BST)
I say we ask the opinion of Kevan in 3 distinct areas of possible conflict of copyright (if anyone can think of any more, let me know)
- Creation of templates (E.G someone using a copyrighted image in a template)
- Creation of groups (For example, if I where to create a group in homage to Firefly, say, would I be breaking copyright by uploading a picture relevent to the series on the page?)
- On personal talkpages (A picture that is copyrighted, but just used on personal pages)
It is possible that there are certain "grey" areas of copyright policy that we are not aware of, and In that, Akule, I would ask your help. I have little knowlege of copyright, but I understand that you are studying law (I must ask, degree or school level?) and you may be able to enlighten us here on any insights. Personaly, I will have a look, see if I can't find a "copyright on the web" article in a legal journal (I have access to Ovid and JStor, to name a couple). If I do find anything I will message you anything I can find relevent and ask your interpritation of it.--SeventythreeTalk 08:04, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Found something. It's on http://www.tasi.ac.uk/advice/managing/copyright.html. (I don't know how to use links) But It does say Despite the meticulousness and detail of the copyright legislation, many terms relating to the use of content, including digital images, such as: 'reasonable'; 'non-commercial'; and 'substantial' remain undefined. This creates more complexity in interpretation and the necessity for reliance upon case law, best practice and pragmatism.
And later on.... So what is fair? It is considered fair if it does not damage the legitimate commercial interests of the copyright owner. This can then raise the question of what is a legitimate commercial interest? For example, an image may be placed on a Web site, and a researcher may use the image for his own research. The copyright owner may then sue saying he was planning to develop a Web site a charge a fee for access to the images. The copyright owner may claim damages, and only has to prove that he was planning to commercialise the Web site. What is fair can be difficult for a user to judge, but obviously, multiple copying is worse that a single copy. Multiple copying will more likely affect a legitimate commercial interest
I'm not 100% sure how usefull this is, but It could be something.--SeventythreeTalk 08:31, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Been doing some reading
And came across this interesting little oddment. This is how I suspected things would work but did not have the requisite legal jargon. Can't remember where we were discussing this recently, but seems like a good starting point for clarifying existing status quo and working on any changes. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:27, 4 July 2011 (BST)
