UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Citerion 13 - Speedy Deletion of Copyrighted Images

From The Urban Dead Wiki

< UDWiki talk:Moderation‎ | Policy Discussion
Revision as of 16:21, 12 May 2007 by Slicer (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Discuss

I await your input. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This policy is one hundred percent Pillsy approved. Pillsy FT 20:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont care who, i dont care when. I will probably not notice when this thing goes for voting, so as soon anyone can vote in this, please add my name in the against section, since anything that looks like this will prolly tear the wiki in half. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why the sudden personal interest in adherence to online copyright law on the UDwiki? You seem suddenly really into this. --MorthBabid 07:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Too much time on his hands, and maybe to get people to pay attention to him on the Wiki to make himself look important so he use as a reason to get promoted. I really doubt he's doing this because he cares about Copyright law. Edit, Actually looking through the recent deletion pages, and Akule's obsession with deleting things, I have determined that Akule is simply insane.--Rogue 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Should you really talk? I mean, you clearly had no grasp of copyright law. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 06:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually seeing the way the laws are written as is are hardly enforced... Yes I do know more about copyright law. --Rogue 17:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Shitcockery from others aside, you haven't really answered the question as far as I can see, Akule. Yes, you're a law student and have studied copyright law...but why the interest to enforce it and have it represented here on this website? --MorthBabid 08:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of images that are obviously copywritten. Ripping a .jpg of Spock or Darth Vader from a web site and then posting it somewhere else is an infringement of other people's property. The rules of the wiki are fairly clear, and unless we're willing to change them, all the complaining in the world doesn't change the fact that copyright infringement is against those rules. --Kiki Lottaboobs 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


In many countries, everything that is created gets an automatic (if not registered or filed) copyright; so, the issue is more of whether the creator wishes to enforce said copyright. Now, on my review of the deletions page, there were a few images listed where the creator had asserted his copyright, and requested deletion, and STILL the keep votes kept coming in. On the other hand, in the realm of fair use, if the use of an image does not effect the value of the image or its reputation, or if it can be reasonably said that the creator is not enforcing his copyright, or if the usage falls under parody or academic review, then voting on these bases would be appropriate. But, to move all copyrighted images to "speedy delete" would entail deleting all images, in order to be self-consistent. Just play things safe, and use source citations where appropriate. Asheets 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pissed and Angry

My group, the Black Bloc was delated because, I guess, one of my images from a anarchist web site that avidly DIDN't allow copyrighting and some moderator thought it would have been copyrighted, even though anarchists are against such things. My group page is gone and i am pissed and i vote against people taking more power than they should have to regulate this site. Fucking horrible, the anarchist who drew it is against copyrighting and my group gets deleated? WTF?--Lorosidiotas 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Fuck private property. I'm 100% serious. Removing all those pics because they were made by someone else, even if no one claims to have created them, is rediculous and would make the wiki so much lamer to the eye. And the starts the witchhunts against images that people will think others made, but were in fact made by people of the wiki. Seriously, fuck this, it's rediculous. -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 22:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so when Kevan is sued for a serious breach of copyright can he come to you for the money he has to pay out in fines? There doesn't have to be a policy for this, mods could just go through and nuke every copyrighted image on the wiki if they want. This policy is required. Pillsy FT 22:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is it required, if you just said they can remove it. Kevan can't be held accountable for what other people put on a fucking wiki. So yeah, fuck this. Fucking copy-rights, they should be nuked from orbit. Twice. -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think theres a way we can address both points with one addition to our use of images. I believe current electronic copyright law only "brings down the hammer" for completly unreferenced copyrighted work that are claimed and activly promoted as someones own creation fraudulently. This is rarely (and I doubt its ever been) the case on UDwiki. Rather, its akin to thirteen year olds uploading anime pictures and using it for their 'roleplay' profiles or to just look cool. Usually, big corperations and most artists don't complain about such things...because those websites USUALLY have the qualifier "Copyrighted/Owned by <source>, used without permission" on them, which is enough legally to allow a immediate removal of said copyrighted material if the owner or their legal representatives deem fit. Beyond the use of Scientology and a less recently the World Wildlife Fund, such cases usually end with the removal of the content, with no legal recourse. So maybe if we allow CITED sources that SHOW they're used without copyright consent in the image source be good enough? I'm not saying there wouldn't be problems, but that'd kill the biggest of them on both sides imho. Good idea, or does I fail @ lyfe? I mean, sites like YTMND pull off worse events of copyright infringement than we do, and they're boomin' and rakin' in the dough more than Kevan. --MorthBabid 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Kevan is responsible for what is put on the wiki, as it is his webspace. His web host can terminate the contract if they find that he is violating the terms of service, even if he isn't the one who put the offending content on the wiki, as he is the one who allowed people to post things on it in the first place. Regardless, I don't see this as a harmful measure. The window I'm typing this in does have the qualifier that we are not supposed to submit copyrighted works without permission...--Amanu Jaku 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering all of the zero seconds of research you do on an image before throwing it up for deletion, I can't say I really trust you with the power to decide if something is magically copyrighted or not. Quite a few of those images, such as the Sardaukar one are included on Wikipedia, which also endeavours to use public domain content as much as possible. Usually a good disclaimer on the image page is all that's necessary, considering basically none of the images I've seen would ever adversely affect their producers/owners. -- ∀lan Watson T·RVP 03:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about I add a section that the person putting up the image for deletion must provide a link to the actual copyright holder of the image? That way they have to do research and prove to the moderation staff that the image is violating copyright law, where it is from, and who owns it. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

NO NO NO NO NO - Am I clear enough? Especially not when I see who's advocating this. All we need is a required field on the image uploading page to put who owns the image or where it was found. I'm willing to bet that 90% of the images on this wiki were found through Google searches, which means that not only does the uploader have nearly zero idea who owns the image, they most likely don't care enough to find out. Also, only the most douchebag-ey of companies will sue right off the bat, especially for use on a wiki. In the unlikely event that Kevan receives a warning for the image, all he has to do is delete it, and maybe tell the person that uploaded it why it was deleted, and not to re-upload it. End of discussion on my end. You are being entirely ridiculous on this issue, and frankly, it's starting to piss me off. You're wasting everyone's time by constantly playing Image Nazi, and I'm sure the mods agree with me on this. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 03:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you're also saying that people can't read the text at the bottom of the edit screen or the image upload window? If they ignored that and went ahead and posted the images and went against what is clearly listed as policy for the wiki, why should they be allowed to keep the image? Now, if they could either cite the source (following fair-use guidelines), get permission, or get someone to make the image, then the whole thing is moot. I'm sure you could pay an artist to create a custom image for a character or group with minimal amounts of cash. There are also character portrait sites that only require you to list the site that created it, and you can display it on a website. As for your feelings that the moderators will support you, I noticed that a moderator right below this post, posted something supportive of this measure. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for requiring source of image being required on all images (its the History Major in me)... As long as the images are properly cited and this wiki makes no money from the images then it's fine. Now in some cases the images are patently violation of copyrights and should have artists permission (such as the Packard Jennings artwork) but the majority of the images used on this wiki are clearly "fair use" uses. Cite them and they're clear. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 07:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem when you cite sources, but when you use an image and claim it as your own (like how Vic is using an image from a movie and claims it as his character's pic), that's when you start running into trouble. I'd be willing to amend the Criterion (yes, I realized I misspelled it when I posted it) to make it so that the person putting it up for speedy deletion shows that the image is not cited, and can post a link to the actual copyright holder. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confusing that claiming that an image represents your character also assumes you claim to own the image. I don't think both facts go hand in hand, but a qualifier of some sort may be needed as a requirement. --MorthBabid 07:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but how would you prove you've made it? Doing a screenshot wouldn't work, as you could just copy and paste. Jonny12 Talk 14:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By amending the requirement for deletion to prove that someone else owns the rights, the person putting up the image for deletion effectively has to prove that someone else owns the image and its rights. I think that would be effective enough, don't you? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, the way I read it was that the accused person had to prove it, which would be virtually impossible. Jonny12 Talk 17:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it was that way to begin with. I realized the problem with that (based on feedback and thinking about it), so I amended the criterion. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Vic has the right idea. It only implicates the person responsible and is easily traceable to where it was found, and whom created it.--John Blast 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, as Kevan hosts the images, and the moderation staff has the power to remove the images. You'll note that Napster was able to be sued for providing the software to swap files, while Kevan provides the space to host images. We have a moderation staff for a reason. They enact, enforce, and police the wiki and it's policies. It's a policy that no copyrighted works shall be added to the wiki without permission. If they ignore an image and a warning is issued to Kevan, he could very easily be sued if he refuses to comply. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Discuss Rough Draft 1.1

Exactly as it says. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected by Fair use act

The right set forth in Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act, to use copyrighted materials for certain purposes, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

I've been wanting to state this for awhile but, using Icons, mottos, and other single images from copyrighted sources for non-profit purposes is protected under section 107. If someone tried to sue Kevan for this they will be laughed out of the courtroom. --Rogue 20:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are very wrong.

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple :copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

and

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

What does this mean? Using someone else's images for the purposes of portraying your character is against the fair use act. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 20:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From the link in the policy, I think the wiki is based in the UK, so we'd be subject to UK law rather than US law. It's my understanding the UK's fair dealing laws are more limited than the corresponding US's fair use laws, though I could easily be wrong about any of this. (And btw, should it be US' or US's ?) --Toejam 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Goverments shouldn't control the internet, and nothing will change my opinion about this. Not even the fucking UN (who are a bunch of pussies anyways) should control it. As such, anything that has to do with local laws, such as copyrights, I will vote against! Were it made of paper, I'd shred it to pieces and throw it on the ground. But unfortunaly, I'll have to content voting "against" and putting it down on the talk page... -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to give you an exemple of why I find copyrights so stupid... If you and your union go on strike, waving signs depicting the crossed-out company logo, you are against the law and can be fined, because the logo is a ® trademark! Untill copyrights only ban use of the material for profit, I'll oppose it every chance I get. And the fair use act ain't in every country. Unless it changed, you cannot use copyrighted material, even for teaching, here. And who's to say what country's laws about copyright the wiki is supposed to use. -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works I believe taking something and altering it it for your own character fits under Parody. I can name hundreds upon hundreds of sites that, according to YOU, should have been sued out of existance, since such thing is supposedly illegal, according to YOU that is. --Rogue 22:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd have to say you're wrong here. Also, C=I, this is not exactly the place to get up on your communist soapbox.--J Muller 05:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Then I'd have to say you are wrong. It's really quite simple. --Rogue 08:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll explain it below, but J is correct, you are wrong. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™
You still haven't explained why Parody isn't covered. --Rogue 05:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


64px-PD-icon.svg.png Anti-Copyright User
This user hates copyrights.
-Certified=InsaneQuébécois 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, how does the wiki police this issue? I see quote unquote copyrighted material there all the time, but that could probably be considered "educational"... --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 09:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. Since no one makes profits out of this, only morons would even try to sue, and very few will complain. And besides, if that's done, the image will be removed, and nothing will follow. It's the fucking internet, it should be lawless. -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 17:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I covered this in the criterion. The person who nominates an image for deletion has to post proof (a link to the actual copyright holder) for the moderators to see that the image is not posted with permission. Then the images are to wait five days for the image uploader to provide proof of permission. If no proof of permission is used, the image is deleted. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 18:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the question here is not whether we like or dislike copyrights. I hate copyrights too, but they exist for a reason, and there is nothing we can do about it. We must avoid any chance of the unlikely event Kevan is accused of copyright infringement. --Wikidead 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wether it should or should'nt be about wether we like 'em or not, I don't care, I'll never do anything to promote the machine of copyright. So as long as he keeps trying, I'll pull out some nifty templates to put him down ;) -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't make any sense. Put who down? Machine of copyright? Isn't this policy for protecting Kevan and Urban Dead from the tyranny of lawyers? I'm confused now... --Wikidead 06:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The idea is not only to protect Kevan and keep the site up and running, but actually also protect the people using it, as Urban Dead and the wiki is a part of a commercial site. Since it makes money through donations and advertisements, a lot of the arguments that Rogue and Vic are making are simply wrong. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 06:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I meant I was confused by Certified=Insane's comments because they are nonsensical. However, I still thank you for this clarification, and I agree with you completely. Has anyone looked up the European Union's take on copyright law yet? --Wikidead 19:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this sums it up.

Gavel.jpg LEGALITY LOL
Akule mistakenly believes they have a working grasp of the law.

--Rogue 18:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm so putting that on my user page. Great job, awesome template.--J Muller 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not mine, I started making one but then I found this one instead. I plan on a much better one about this. --Rogue 06:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Akule does seem to know his shit...the problem is he's really telling us something we don't want to hear. And maybe in a way we really didn't like to be shown. I think the problem is that the legal system we're being subjected to hasn't caught up with the needs of the world in which it effects. Akule is right (or at least has convinced me with his research) in saying in a strictly semantical sense that we apparently violate the these laws; But I disagree with his assumption that we must thus adhere to the strict letter of these laws. I think the risk of incrimination does not outweigh the benifits of adopting our own better standards that seek to uphold the SPIRT of the law, as the current LETTER of it is flawed imho. It doesn't really apply to electronic media and representation, as well as non-profit use by casual individuals. Would "Hello Kitty" sue a little girl who made her own shirt for her own use with her own approximation of the "Hello Kitty" character? I doubt it, mostly because while it would violate the LETTER of current 'fair-use' laws (as Akule has done a pretty good job pointing out), it falls within the SPIRT in which those laws were created to serve in the first place. In many ways, I feel UDWiki (and Wikipedia for that matter) fall into that same area. --MorthBabid 20:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So why don't we get a group of people together and post where the images are taken from? That way the majority of images will be protected from at least some of that godawfully huge argument until Kevan makes a public decision. --Amanu Jaku 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Hence why I think he's still wrong, the 'letter' of the law isn't realistic anymore. It wasn't made to cover the fast paced movement of electronic media, or of people using things for avatars, sigs, and backgrounds either. It was designed to prevent people from stealing work to make a profit off of it. Not taking stuff and using it as their icon on a wiki. --Rogue 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the internet is a digital medium it actually is very much covered by current copyright law. I believe the below arguments clearly describe what is and what is not acceptable. Again, since Urban Dead and the wiki is part of the same commercial site and makes money through donations and ad revenue, you cannot make the argument that the images are used for non-profit reasons, as they can be used to attract other people to the site and thus generate more revenue. The simple fact is that it doesn't matter what you think, as it is up to the courts and British law. Now, I am all for citing all of the images on the wiki. That will keep Kevan and everyone safe from the Passing off Common Law Tort, and if you read Jenning's email at Talk:Battle_of_the_Bear_Pit you'll note that he would have been more open to the idea if he had been consulted and been properly cited. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 06:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Raise your hand if you have enough time to write ****ing letters to every single person you might accidently copy off of? Put your hand down Akule. How about this, YOU and YOU alone are to go and get approval for this, since you are the only one who gives a damn. As MorthBabid said the 'letter of the law' is wrong. The fact that the Channel 4 news team uses images from the movie Anchorman has no effect on how much money Kevan gets and even if somehow it possibly could, HOW DOES THIS HURT THE PRODUCERS OF THE ANCHORMAN MOVIE? For all you know they could like this as free pubilicity. This is just you on a power trip and quite frankly lets get this thing to voting so everyone can shoot you down. Then maybe you can quit trying to 'save' everyone. --Rogue 17:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Gavel.jpg Frakkin' Lawyer
Akule is a lawyer and therefore believed to be damned.
"One lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a hundred guys with guns." -- Vito Corleone

Let's Learn Copyright Law

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about Copyright Law, Fair Use, and Parody. One of the biggest problems is that the UD Wiki is hosted in the United Kingdom instead of the United States. This means that the UD Wiki is actually under the jurisdiction of the UK instead of the US and the Supreme Court. Since there is a lot of confusion about the US and UK copyright law, I will be explaining both instances.

Copyright Law - US

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

  • 1. to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

This means that the copyright holder can reproduce the copyrighted work. It gives musicians the right to make CDs with their songs, artists the right to make prints of their images, and directors to make DVDs of their movies.

  • 2. to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

I will discuss derivatives below, as people are applying it to parodies. Essentially, derivative works are an artistic creation that includes major, basic copyrighted aspects of an original, previously created first work. The rights of the first work's originator must be granted to the secondary work for it to be rightfully called a "derivative work".

  • 3. to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

This allows the copyright holders the right to take their copyrighted works and sell them.

  • 4. in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

This allows for the public viewing of the copyrighted work, so that the copyright holders would be allowed to distribute it to large audiences. This is for live performances, movies, and concerts.

  • 5. in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

This allows for the public display of images, sculptures, and other copyrighted works.

  • 6. in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

This allows for radio and internet broadcasts of copyrighted sound recordings.

106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

a. Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —

This subsection is created for people who create visual art, such as pictures or sculptures. Videos, movies, and other works are not covered in this section. They are considered to be collaborations and have all of the full rights in section 106.

  • 1. shall have the right —

Is given the right.

    • A. to claim authorship of that work, and

To say: "I own this picture."

    • B. to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;

For example, you can't draw a picture and say that Vincent Van Gough made the picture.

  • 2. shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and

This gives the artist the right to prevent people from making images purposefully aimed at ruining a persons reputation or that could damage a person's reputation. Example: Someone drawing a pornographic comic and claiming that Mr. Rogers wrote it.

  • 3. subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —

There are further rights, but limited by subsection d.

    • A. to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

This prevents people from modifying, altering, or misrepresenting copyrighted works (such as pictures), be it purposefully to disrupt the copyright holder's reputation or to just modify the work. This is different from 2. because it applies to the author's actual works, rather than works being attributed to the author.

    • B. to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.

This prevents people from destroying copyrighted works. Example: This section prevents people from smashing a statue or buring an image. It also prevents people from storing copyrighted works in areas that could damage the copyrighted work.

b. Scope and Exercise of Rights. — Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.

Only the person who created the copyrighted work, not necessarily the person who owns the copyright, has all of the rights listed under a.

c. Exceptions. —

Some exceptions to these rules.

  • 1. The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).

As pictures, paintings, sculptures age, and are worn down from time and use, as long as it was not an intentional distortion or mutilation, is not counted for violations of subsection a.3.A.

  • 2. The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence.

Section a.3. does not apply if people are actively trying to conserve a work by trying to protect it or how to light it. If someone intentionally or accidentally lights a piece wrong or attempts to conserve (protect) the copyrighted work.

  • 3. The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).

The rights described in the above sections 1 and 2 does not apply to any reproductions of the original work. So if someone has a poster and it is intentionally destroyed, it is not a violation of copyright law. This doesn't mean that the person who owns the poster can modify it and then start making copies of the poster and selling it.

d. Duration of Rights. —

How long do these rights last?

  • 1. With respect to works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author.

Meaning, as long as an author is alive, the additional rights of the original author cited in 106A subsection a. are in effect.

  • 2. With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title to which has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at the same time as, the rights conferred by section 106.

Any work created before the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 is considered to have the same duration for section 106A.

  • 3. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author.

If the work is created by more than one person, the rights of 106A last until the last member of the joint work dies.

  • 4. All terms of the rights conferred by subsection (a) run to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.

If the author dies January 1, the rights of 106A last until the start of the next year.

e. Transfer and Waiver. —

Rules for transferring and waiving the rights in 106A.

  • 1. The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors.

The original author(s) always has the rights of 106A, but can waive those rights. This is generally how you can use images if the author gives you express permission.

  • 2. Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.

If someone wants to buy a copyright, the rights in 106A are seperate from the purchase of the copyright. They cannot force an author to give up their rights in 106A, but they can ask the author to waive the rights. The author can legally decline.

Copyright Law - UK

  • Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works - Copyright lasts for fifty years from the death of the author. If the author is unknown, copyright expires fifty years after the work is first made available to the public. If the work is computer-generated, copyright expires fifty years after the work is made.

This means that all British copyrights for Literary, dramatic, musical, or artistis works last for fifty years past the death of the author. It should be noted that this is for the UK works only. I shall address other country's works below.

  • Sound recordings and films - Copyright lasts for fifty years after the recording or film is made. If the recording or film is released (published, broadcast or shown in public) within this period, the copyright lasts for fifty years from the date of release.

This means that all British copyrights for sound recordings and films last for fifty years past the death of the author. It should be noted that this is for the UK works only. I shall address other country's works below. This means that all pictures from the Channel 4 News team (which come from a british film) cannot be used as the copyright is still in effect. I shall discuss Fair Dealing, below.

  • Broadcasts and cable programmes - Copyright lasts for fifty years after the first broadcast or transmission. The repeat of a broadcast or a cable programme does not generate a new copyright period.

This means that all British copyrights for broadcats and cable programmes last for fifty years past the death of the author. It should be noted that this is for the UK works only. I shall address other country's works below.

  • Typographical arrangements - Copyright lasts for twenty-five years after the edition is published.

This means that all British copyrights for articles and non-fiction last for twenty-five years past the death of the author. It should be noted that this is for the UK works only. I shall address other country's works below.

Fair use - US

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

Meaning that the only time you can use a copyrighted work would be for the purposes of:

  • Criticising the work
  • Commenting on the work
  • Creating a news article about the work
  • Teaching others about the work in a educational setting
  • Referring to the work in scholarships
  • Referring to the work in research.

The courts will look for such factors as:

  • 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

To see if the work is being listed on a commercial site or used on a nonprofit site for educational purposes. The actual wikipedia uses works for educational purposes, as it treats itself like a dictionary. Meaning that it's main purpose is to inform, not claim it as their own.

  • 2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

The courts want to investigate the work and see what is is composed of.

  • 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

How much of the work is being used on the potentially infringing site. In most cases for this wiki, either the whole work or a secene of a work (movie, TV show, video game, etc.) is being used. Those types of work are not applied to 106a.

  • 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The court then looks at the possible ramefacations of the copyright infringement to determine how it will affect the artist.

Fair Dealing (use) - UK

There are several ways that people can use images in the UK without getting express permission of the copyright holder:

Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), fair dealing is defined as "private study and criticism and review and news reporting" (s. 29, 30) Although not actually defined as a fair dealing, copyright in works is not infringed by incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable program. New regulations came into force at the end of October 2003 which reduced the research fair dealing exception to non-commercial research only.

The CDPA permits individuals to make a single copy of a "reasonable proportion" of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works for "research and private study" and "criticism, review and news reporting" ( s. 29, 30) under the terms of "fair dealing". The extent of "reasonable proportion" is not defined in the act.

Some higher education institutions in the UK interpret "reasonable proportion" as:

  • One article in a single issue of a periodical or set of conference proceedings.
  • An extract from a book amounting to 5% of the whole or a complete chapter.
  • A whole poem or short story from a collection, provided the item is not more than 10 pages.
  • In general, copying of sheet music is not allowed.
  • Making more than one copy is also not allowed.

For copying beyond the boundaries set forth by these guidelines, universities and schools in the UK obtain licences from a national copyright collective, the UK Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA), for their staff and students. Under these licences, multiple copies of portions of copyrighted works can be made for educational purposes.

  • Fair dealing in a work for the purposes of private study or research (s. 29)
  • Fair dealing in a work with acknowledgment for the purposes of criticism or review or, unless the work is a photograph, for the purposes of news reporting (s. 30);
  • Incidental inclusion of copyright material in another work (s. 31);
  • Public reading or recital by a single person with acknowledgment (s. 59);
  • Copying and distribution of copies of the abstracts of scientific and technical articles (s. 60);
  • Recordings of folksongs for archives (s. 61);[10]
  • Photographs, graphic works, films or broadcasts of buildings and sculptures in a public place (s. 62);
  • Copying and distribution of copies of an artistic work for the purpose of advertising its sale (s. 63);
  • Reconstruction of a building (s. 65)
  • Rental of sound recordings, films and computer programs under a scheme which provides for reasonable royalty to the copyright holder (s. 66);
  • Playing of sound recordings for the purposes of a non-commercial club or society (s. 67);
  • Recording for the purposes of time-shifting (s. 70);
  • Free public showing of broadcasts (s. 72);
  • Provision of subtitled copies of broadcasts for the handicapped by designated bodies (s. 74);[11]
  • Recording of broadcasts for archival purposes (s. 75).[12]

It should be noted that these can be superceeded by the copyright laws of other countries, which means that all of the American copyrighted images and works are subject to the rules and regulations of the American Copyright Law.

Passing Off - UK

It should also be noted that if people do not cite sources in the UK, you are also in violation of the Passing Off (a common law Tort) which can be used to enforce unregistered trademark rights. Passing off essentially occurs where the reputation of party A is misappropriated by party B, such that party B misrepresents this reputation and damages the goodwill of party A.

The law of passing off prevents one person from misrepresenting his or her goods or services as being the goods and services of the plaintiff, and also prevents one person from holding out his or her goods or services as having some association or connection with the plaintiff when this is not true.

The law of passing off is designed to prevent misrepresentation to the public where there is some sort of association between the plaintiff and the defendant. Where the defendant does something so that the public is misled into thinking the activity is associated with the plaintiff, and as a result the plaintiff suffers some damage, under the law of passing off it may be possible for the plaintiff to initiate action against the defendant.

This means that when Vic D'Amato posts a copyrighted image and claims it as his character (image from [The Deer Hunter), and does not cite the source (in addition to the failure to meet the qualifications of Fair use or Fair Dealing), he is pretending that he has an arrangement with the copyright holder and is misleading the public. So not only could uncited sources be violations of copyright law, but can also be in violation of the Passing Off common law tort.

Parody

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Since Rogue likes to quote the wikipedia, let's look at it.

Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC § 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. (See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.)

Noting that Rogue failed to quote the whole thing, prompts me to look at the actual case. The case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. is what prompted section 107 to be created of the copyright law. This means that:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

Which I already covered above. The court further explained:

Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fair use. Under the first of the four 107 factors, "the purpose and Page II character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature . . .," the enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is "transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message. The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use. The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work. But that tells courts little about where to draw the line. Thus, like other uses, parody has to work its way through the relevant factors. Pp. 8-12.


The key line to focus on is: "The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work."

Posting pictures, like Vic D'Amato does for his character, which steals an image from The Deer Hunter, does not comment on the author's work, but instead takes the author's work and claims it as his own. Vic is effectively saying: "This is what my character looks like." No citations or source references, and it doesn't fall under the previous mentions of Copyright law, section 107.

Even if he did cite the source, it would prevent accusations of plagiarism (which is is currently doing, as well as violating copyright law), but is not a sufficient defense against copyright violations. Otherwise, anyone could legally reprint an entire copyrighted book just by citing who wrote it or legally reprint movies just by citing who directed it.

Enforcement

I have noticed that some people state that companies would be "scum" if they enforced their copyrights, and that most companies do not. The reason why most companies do not, is because it would take bushels of money in order to police every environment that could harbor the infringement of copyrights. Just because a company doesn't choose to go around and police the internet, doesn't mean that what is being done on here isn't against the law, and against the UD wiki guidelines on copyrighted information. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

wtf!?!

Who has that nifty template about having too much time on their hands?

Anyhow, I reject any other law than that of the goverment of Québec, and reject everything in it's civil code of laws... I suppose that means I don't give a shit about your copyright laws. -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 02:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Bored.jpg Why are you still reading these?
This user thinks you have way too much free time on your hands.
Found it! -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 02:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We'll see how that all works out for you.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 02:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Just because you don't support laws doesn't mean you don't have to follow them. Oh, wait, you're an anarchist, right? Forget that, then. You do believe that you don't have to follow laws you don't like. But remember, just because you're anarchist doesn't mean you can't get sued.--J Muller 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Retort

Actually I quoted a Dictionary site. Actually I could take it as since Vic is claiming he's that character, he's mocking the orginal. One could claim that the group pretending to be the Channel 4 news team is 'mocking' them so to speak. Parody.

Oh and that template still counts, like you said, if they don't enforce it, it must not matter to them that much. Therefore, the 'breaking the law' is clearly a grey area.

Well what you think matters little anyway, because of your recent actions, I'm sure this thing is going down in flames. Can I rub it in when it does? --Rogue 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You'd have my blessings! I'm sure I could be quoted saying recently that I hate rule-lawyers... And that dude's being one. ;) -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 03:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Rogue's almost got it. Since I'm neither using the image of De Niro with malicious intent nor making money off it, I'm in complete protection of the law. Simple as that. Suck it, Trebek. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 03:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
So, I take it reading isn't a big thing for you? Didn't actually read anything of the above argument? Because, if you did, you would know that it doesn't matter how you were using the image. You are using the image on a British website. Meaning that you are in violation of not only regular copyright law, but the common law tort, Passing Off. Of course, you have clearly not cared about that, which is why you are not a good candidate for a moderator, as you don't care about the laws that govern the UD wiki and the possible legal actions against Kevan. I suppose that is why only one person voted for you. I'm sure that made you feel really special inside. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 07:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you a lawyer Akule? Because only a lawyer would give such a damn about a stupid subject that no one in their right mind would care about. --Rogue 17:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Emails From Kevan

Note that these have, obviously, been formatted to be easier to read on the wiki. I can forward the originals if anyone is interested.

The Emails:
We've got a charming individual listing absolutely every copyright infringement he can find for deletion, even those there are clearly fair-use and/or now in the public domain.
  1. Since image deletions can't really be undone at this point in time, I felt it prudent to clarify with you: is what is found on the image upload form (prior permission required for *all* copyrighted images) binding, or is there some room for movement there?
  2. Do you even care about fair-use? Should we just nuke them on sight? Since it's your neck that would be on the chopping block if some overzealous company starts seeking legal remedies, I felt it be prudent to get your opinion on that too.

--Xoid

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.
A good summary? *blanches* The laws differ from country-to-country, there's the Berne convention, there's... you get the picture. Compiling a short list would be like pulling teeth. Requiring a short write up on each image's page as to why it's fair-use would be the way to go in my opinion. Not like we still won't get sued if some overzealous company sees fit, but they're less likely to. --Xoid
I guess we're going with UK copyright law, since my server's located in the UK. Requiring the write-up on each image page is definitely a good idea, but I don't think UK law gives much room for fair use (no "parody", for a start), so not much is going to be allowed. --Kevan


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
After hearing about various abuses of PHP generated images that have happened on the UDWiki, I'm incredibly reluctant to suggest reenabling them. From what I've been told, it was technically a browser exploit that could be used for practically any nefarious purpose. I really, really don't like the sound of that, but the guy wouldn't elaborate. --Xoid
Sounds very mysterious. I suppose there's the possibility of PHP-generated images that track the IP of the user and the page they're reading (or even serve up a different image if it detects a particular IP), but I hadn't heard of any fierce browser exploits. No point risking it, though, if we don't need to. --Kevan

Xoid MTFU! 06:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that, Xoid, its nice to have another point of view from the guy in charge. But does this mean we simply WILL adopt the UK standards, no question? Or will we simply vote upon it via this policy? Kinda unclear to me. On the plus side, we're at least not the only wiki thats having problems with copyright. --MorthBabid 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn'y need to see that... -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 21:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
So what about those of us that don't live in the UK? We shouldn't have to follow UK law just because that's where the site is based. That's the problem with "internet law". There's no international standard. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 04:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay? I'm sure kiddie porn is legal somewhere... "But I got the kiddie porn from the Republic of Tonga... It's all legal!!" ... yeah.. that would totally work in a court of law.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 05:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
But I'm not storing the "kiddie porn" on my computer, I'm viewing it on a page. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 05:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless your computer is substantionally different than every other computer in the world, then you download, images, pages, and whatnot to your computer in your temporary folder to view kiddie porn, or copyrighted images. Likewise, Kevan is storing these images in the UK, and therefore, subject to UK law.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 05:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Vic. You are actually subject to the Passing Off common law tort since you haven't cited your image, in addition to violating copyright law. Your images are hosted on the UD site, which is surprisingly subject to UK law. You'd also be surprised to know, but courts can extradite criminals for violating laws even when the criminal is not based in the country. We call that extradition. So Kevan (who is subject to UK laws as well) is responsible for your images that you host on his site. Do I need to make in all caps before you can read it? Or perhaps colored, flashing text. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 07:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Concurring with both AS and Akule. –Xoid MTFU! 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've found that bolding critical ideas within a dense bit of text does help, both on the policy page and the Suggestion page, btw. --MorthBabid 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
UK law, no questions asked, no votes, no bullshit. Anything less risks shutting down Urban Dead for an indeterminate amount of time. We can add more restrictions via a policy if you wish to (god only knows why anyone would…). –Xoid MTFU! 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so does the current incarnation of the policy reflect this? --MorthBabid 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Xoid, could you do me a favor and ask Kevan if it would be cool for fans to start selling UD merchandise online? From what I can tell, UD isn't even copyrghted. --Kiki Lottaboobs 05:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevan AT Kevan DOT org. It's not hard. –Xoid MTFU! 07:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So...?

If it looks like art and might lead some people to think we created it, it's bad, otherwise it's okay as long as we don't claim it?

What if, for artwork, we give the source (website) of where we found it, would that be okay? Otherwise the only way to use it would be to host the image from another server, 'cause usually it's extremely hard, if not impossible, to contact the owners of those websites, and usually they don't bother replying or say "it's okay as long as you mention I did it", and external hosting doesn't seem to be what anyone wants. -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That would free up Kevan from multiple violations of the Passing Off common law tort since that allows new users to understand that the images are not used with permission, so they don't misunderstand that Kevan doesn't work with those companies or own those images. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 07:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

UK law, no questions asked

What does that mean? I've no problem with banning the use of simply reproduced images... but what's the go with images that have been cropped, filtered, realigned, combined with other images, had text added... all sorts of stuff? Where's the line going to be drawn?

p.s. this don't need no policy, what the wiki god say, goes... just wanna know, eh -- boxy T L PA DA 15:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. I don't think any of us are familiar enough with UK law.
Side note: I just noticed that this page is misspelt. Heh. I think images that are derivatives have to list who owns the original, what it was, etc., but I'm far from 'up' with UK law. –Xoid MTFU! 16:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Companies follow a process, first a free cease and desist, then the lawsuits. How many cease and desists has Kevan gotten? --Rogue 17:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd guess anywhere between none and zero. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 19:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Well, that answers that. --MorthBabid 00:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Kevan, do you mind the idea that we set it up where we try and cite all of the images in order to sort out public domain images and then for the copyrighted images, we try and either get permission for them or just remove them? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 03:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You can be the one to go through almost 3,700 images, find out where they came from, and tag them all as such. I sure as hell won't be. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Good Luck on the mod bid.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You see, going through the regular pages has a purpose. As opposed to this, of course, which is just needlessly covering the collective asses of the wiki. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 06:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it's covering the singular ass of Kevan, who is responsible for all this, not the wiki.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 06:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

UDwiki 2007

Okay, since this is likely to go through, can we come up a simple bulleted list of what is allowed and what is not allowed without having to sift through the legal mumbo jumbo, because I don't have the patience of a law student like my friend, Akule. Also, maybe a template can be created (something like {{CRIMAGE|Imagename}}) that we can add to the user who uploaded the image that he needs to get permission/cite the source or whatever, before it gets deleted.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 20:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I think Kevan has pretty much taken a position opposite of Akules (Assuming I read it correctly): We can adopt whatever policy we wish to deal with this, but if something comes up that goes against his wishes\interests\personal security? He'll nuke it regardless of what the community may think. And the language on the current policy is pretty plain, not legal mumo-jumbo. If Folks like it, we'll vote on it to pass. If we don't, it'll die and we'll have Dread Lord Kevan just execute anyone who gets lawyers on his butt. I'd personally like to see a bit of expansion on our OWN interpretations of 'fair use' and parody, however, because there DOES seem to be a gray area which we generally believe in which current UK law doesn't have. While YES, Arkule is correct in saying that the CURRENT letter of the law doesn't reflect it, I think we have enough leway between Kevan's unquestionable authority and speedy delete to take care of any problem our OWN fair-use interpretations cause. --MorthBabid 00:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I just suspect that he wants something set up. My proposal is a way to have a documented process of how to verify copyrights and how the users can keep their images. I also support the idea of finding artists who are willing to work out images to replace the copyrighted images. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 03:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
No your proposal seeks to gives you premission to spam speedy delete with your insane need to hunt down all copyrights. --Rogue 05:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Rogue? Shut up. Just because it's draconian doesn't mean you have any choice or say in the issue. No one does, not even Kevan. Yes, you read right. It's law over and above all that necessitates the change. We can only try dodging bullets one so many times before one finally strikes home. Don't like it? Complain to England's executive branch, I'm sure they'll give your concerns all the merit they are due. –Xoid MTFU! 01:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Reality check Xoid. If it was a perfect world with perfectly enforced laws yeah we'd have the law breathing down our necks, but so would the real wikipedia as well as millions of other websites out there. As far as copyright violations UDwiki is way down on the list, with minimal ones that could barely even be considered violations in most nations. Now yes there needs to be higher standards, maybe up to the level of the real Wikipedia. But as for deleting every image, when the British Government starts cracking down on websites that break copyrights, (Which they won't because it would be downright impossible.) Then you have a good reason. Until then, at the most you should clean up for Wikipedia standards. Don't delete every image on the site because of the crying chicken little. --Rogue 04:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't think you get the difference between a free public domain information source like the wikipedia, and a privately owned commericial website like this. Thats like saying Graceland is like the yellowstone national park. There needs to be stricter standards for Kevan's protection, not because a "crying little chicken" brings it up. I don't like it anymore than most people, but its something that needs to be done. Now, are you going to bitch more, or you actually going to do something constructive?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 06:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Like what? I'm not going to agree with this and as long as I don't agree I'm going to make sure everyone knows it. So there is nothing else I can do except speak out against it. I'm not sure that Wikipedia is immune to lawsuits either, someone has to be in charge of it. All you're going to do by banning images is annoy alot of people, We'll have to ban multiple groups as well because some use names that might be copyrights. We'll have to ban users as well, some are names owned by other people. Sure we can scrub this Wiki to be completely and utterly safe... But it'll be pretty damn empty. And even then I bet someone if they really wanted too could find some reason to sue Kevan. In fact I saw a user in Urban Dead game named Darth Vader. So lets just shut down Urban dead all together just to be safe. --Rogue 07:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia is largely immune because it is an educational tool, which falls under the fair use policy. I would just work on one thing at a time Rogue. Don't wanna tackle too many copyright rules all at once.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 07:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a problem with your argument, Anime Sucks. This isn't a commercial website. Kevan doesn't sell anything, he doesn't render any services, and he doesn't give money to any companies beyond his hosting people. This is what's called a non-profit operation. The ad money he receives is the only income beyond his personal funds, and all of it goes to upkeep and service of the wiki and the game. If you're naive enough to believe that he actually turns a profit on this, I've got a bridge to sell you. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 07:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
By that logic, I can open up a fast food restaurant, name it Burger King, sell whoppers, have a picture of a King in a funny mask, and if I'm a not profit or failing business it's all kosher? Give me a break.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 07:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was funny. For a minute I thought you were serious. Are you kidding me? Your example is, obviously, something trying to make money. It's a good idea to think and reread before you hit Save page. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 07:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
But I'm just selling whoppers because I like making hamburgers, all the revenue goes back into the business, I don't make a dime. In fact, I'm losing money because my hamburgers don't taste very good anymore, and one of my best customers came along and made a new hamburger and added some new "fresh" ingredients, and took a lot of repeat costumers away. Yet... I still get sued. You are failing to win the argument, so you sling mud instead. Bravo. Yer my hero Vic. But, all you are failing to see the point. It's not about that YOU or I want. It's about what Kevan wants, and from what it looks like, Kevan actually wants to follow the law, not hide behind the "we are small potatoes" argument.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 08:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I point to the C&C:Generals mod "Halogen" that got shut down because it was infringing on the Halo franchise. Wasn't selling anything, wasn't making any money - yet still got threatened with legal action. Cyberbob  Talk  10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
They were only threatened with legal action correct? And actually has Kevan really said what he wanted yet. It seems more like both groups are putting words in his mouth. --Rogue 14:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you actually read the emails from Kevan section, or did argumentative mode override reading the page?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Read it still don't understand, is Kevan going to ban everything in the wiki or is he going to do offsite something? Is he going to ignore it like some above me said. It doesn't seem like the details are ironed out enough for you to praise a new Wiki order. Besides like I said nothing will make Kevan immune to lawsuits as long as he has the Urban Dead game. Of course there is a better chance one of us will be struck by lightning then Kevan being sued. (Unless all this talking about copyrights has bumped this site up in Google) Either way if it is the way you want it's going to be a pretty damn empty wiki, which means why bother just quit everything it's the only way to be 'safe'. There are too many 'maybes' here to take this seriously. So until you provide PROOF that the majority of the world gives a damn about what's on this wiki, I will continue to state that this is a bad idea that will protect NOTHING. --Rogue 20:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Rogue, the wikipedia is a news source. It's meant for reference, which is covered under fair use. The UD wiki is part of a commercial site, as such, it is not covered by fair use. Regardless, it's moot as Kevan is going to implement it. Now, Vic, Kevan offers a site that has ad revenue and offers advanced features if you donate money. That's called: a commercial website. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The Urban Dead Wiki isn't commercial. And the Keyword is DONATE, does anyone here pay to use the wiki? No, the UDwiki is FREE. This is a NEWS site about the game. Not the pay money for game itself. Where does it say how Kevan is going to implement it? And I'm not talking about the lines on this page, he said "In some way" He didn't decide how. --Rogue 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
And the ad revenue? Do you have some spectacular way of explaining that away too? Or are you going to rant more of the same misguided information as before, that no one really wants to hear. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
No one wants to hear you either, but that sure doesn't stop you. Besides see above, these ads are not to turn a profit, it's to pay for hosting. Nextly how is having an image from lets say... Resident evil is being used for profit. doubt people visit the wiki to see that. Besides the images have no effect on if people visit the UDwiki. The images have no effect on profit. Because they aren't used for profit. --Rogue 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
If enough material were stolen to make the wiki pretty and enticing enough we might have people joining the game. That in turn leads to donations from the altruistic among us who think it's worth paying to have such a good game — of which the wiki is a reflection and (supposed to be) an incentive to sign up. I'm almost glad you're not on the Nexus Wiki, 'cause Jorm has a zero-tolerance policy on copy-vio's that'd make your head spin. Why don't you carry on your stupid lil' crusade over there, captain copyleft?
The thing about copyright is… if you don't defend it, you lose it. I'm half inclined to point out various copyright violations on the wiki to the copyright holders just to prove a point; that they can and will cause problems when they learn of them, but I'll refrain.
One final thing, dickhead. You said something earlier about (to paraphrase) "Why be more restrictive than Wikipedia?". A giant HURR to you: they are just as restrictive as this policy proposes, if not more so. Automated deletion of any and all copyrighted material if you don't provide a fair-use rationale. They have damn-near inquisitorial purges of copyright violations considerably worse than anything Akule could ever do.
Your constant uninformed whining bores me. Please fuck off and die. –Xoid MTFU! 08:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I had one in the works a while ago {{copyvio}} but it, uh, seems to have gone missing. I'll just steal borrow one from Wikipedia. –Xoid MTFU! 01:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What is a Commercial Website - or Remedial Learning for Rogue

Kevan provides a service. It's called a free-to-play Browser-Based game called Urban Dead. In Urban Dead, players can purchase a service (a factor of commercial websites) for five dollars per character, where they can have unlimited IP hits against the website for that login name. Normally, players have only 160 IP hits. This is known as a premium service. You will find that Neopets a free-to-play Browser-Based game also follows the design of offering premium services if the players pay money. The players can turn down the premium service in order to play the game, but at a disadvantage.

Urban Dead features advertisements, much like the advertisement you see on the side of the wikipedia window right now. This brings in advertisement revenue that defrays operating costs, and the profit of said revenue (if any) is pocketed by Kevan. If Kevan was operating a nonprofit site, he would donate any surplus revenue in order to maintain that status. Neopets has advertisements on their pages which brings in advertisement revenue in order to defray the operating costs, and the profit of said revenue (if any) is pocketed by the owners of Neopets.

Urban Dead features apparel that can be purchased, featuring such items as t-shirts. This brings in merchandise revenue for Kevan that defrays operating costs, and the profit of said revenue (if any) is pocketed by Kevan. Neopets features apparel that can be purchased, featuring such items as t-shirts, bags, and toys. This brings in merchandise revenue in order to defray the operating costs, and the profit of said revenue (if any) is pocketed by the owners of Neopets.

By your illogical argument, Rogue, Neopets is a nonprofit site. Clearly this line of reasoning is false. Kevan is in this to make money. He didn't make Urban Dead out of the goodness of his heart. He also doesn't want to get sued. Hence why he made UDWiki:Copyrights and stated at the bottom of each page: "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! ", which you still have yet to make a sufficent argument against. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™17:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dickhole's LOLRANT

Absolutely not. Our current policy works fine, if the artists are concerned with us using their images, they can contact us and have them removed, which we will happily do. This is just a way to rouse controversy, and I move it get speedily deleted. --General Lee A. Dickhole Malton Rangers 02:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you post this on the project page?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 09:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It's part of his "omg i n00b be niec" thing. Cyberbob  Talk  09:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Read up, Dick. You might learn something about what Kevan wants. Also, learn how to use the wiki. I heard that people get testy when you don't know how to do basic things. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™17:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Akule BIG difference between the sites

One site has a video game, corporate sponsers, as well as a source of income, where as I doubt Kevan will be living in a Mansion from sales. (At least not yet) Oh yeah by the way, I did some research, when Neopets first started they stole images as well. And as for UDWiki:Copyrights it should match the real world Copyright law. Which is law in name only that is never used unless a company actually gets angry about a copyright violation. Hey it's what England and the US does. If governments realize that they have better things to do then hunt down every copyright violation I would think they have the right idea. So that's my answer, until you get a cease and desist you should ignore it. When Police start kicking in doors because of copyright violations then call me. Until then, you're just an idiot on an insane crusade of a law that the very government doesn't care about.--Rogue 08:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rogue, I give you... This!
SatanLawyer.jpg Blood Sucking Lawyers
This user thinks all lawyers should all just drop dead.

-Certified=InsaneQuébécois 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rogue, both started out the same. They are basically the same type of site: A Browser-Based game. Neopets just is further along than Urban Dead is. Now, tell me, do they steal images still? No? Sounds like you shot yourself in the foot with that argument. Now, Surprisingly, real world copyright law matches the laws on the books, because, golly gee, they exist in the real world too! As for copyright violations and police kicking in the door, I will point to napster, the MIAA, and the RIAA crackdown on general violators. Police kicked down doors and prosecutions continue to this day of not only commercial sites but general users as well. Seems to me that the US Government and the UK Government both care about copyright law very much, and so does KEVAN (who's opinion matters the most in this discussion). --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™
Urban Dead good... Napster bad! and look what happened to Napster after all of that.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Napster had it coming to them, they ignored all cease and desists and they made no attempt to hide the fact that they were violating copyrights. List a case when the government kicks in about a site like this one. If you claim that they enforce the laws Kevan should have been arrested by now. He's not, explain why? If they are SERIOUS about stopping copyright violations why hasn't Kevan been arrested yet? And OMG you linked to Kevan's page, I know exactly who Kevan is and guess what? Your name dropping doesn't work on me Akule. Do I respect Kevan? Yes. Do I think that he should take your crazy ideas that the world Governments spend all their time hunting down copyrights seriously? Nope. --Rogue 06:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This whole conversation is retarded. Can we just move on to an actual decision... I think this hurrcussion has shitted up the wiki enough for now. I know you have stated your feelings about this, Kevan, but have you made an official decision, since this is not really a thing that should be up for a vote since it deals soley with your property and how people use your property?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 14:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with Speedy Deletion Guidelines

After reading this policy and then reviewing the guidelines for speedy deletions, I found possible trouble with keeping copyrighted items selected for speedy deletion on the speedy deletions page, instead of the regular deletions page. Before I explain my point, I would like to state that I then examined the most recent (Jan. and Dec.) requests for deletions on the basis of copyrighted materials. As a result, I found that all the requests had at least one keep vote lodged for them, with many having three or more. If the current circumstances continue with many people voting keep for these types of files, then almost all the requests would be circumvented to the regular deletions page via the guidelines. This circumvention would nerf this policy and render its intent completely inert. In conclusion, the implementation of this policy would not be able to sustain its original purpose on the basis of the speedy deletions' protocols in conjunction with user voting trends. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this policy would change the way that image files are speedy deleted (which I can explain better in the policy itself). Effectively, copyrighted images would be put up for speedy deletion, and then the uploader(and the uploader alone) has five days to prove that the files are being used legitiamately. Since all copyrighted images illegally used on the wiki are in volation of the UDWiki:Copyrights, people would not be allowed to vote to keep them or not (as they are against the rules in the first place). The actual way for them to be able to keep the images would be to obtain permission, and have the artist or creator contact the moderation staff in order to express their permission. Now, there are people complain about this idea, stating that if they actually follow the rules of the wiki, that they won't have any images to use, or that governments or corporations won't care. There are plenty of royalty free image sites and free use image sites out on the internet, that there is really no excuse for not finding something to use. Even then, since Kevan himself has stated that something needs to be done in order to effectively police the copyrighted images, it's moot if anyone will prosecute him or not. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. All you needed to say was this policy would be an exception to the keep vote rule. I think that should probably be put in the current draft to avoid confusion. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 01:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Check the wording now. Is that more acceptable? --Dr. Frank Sloth Akule News - All The News That's Fit To Print. 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great, thanks for the clarification! --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

i have a better idea.

why don't you get a life?--Sexualharrison MR ה TStarofdavid2.png 16:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Are you freakin serious? Are you even a law student, or some fraternity-rejected pre-law? It's a free, online game. Please follow sexualharrison's advice, and do get a life.--IRD 01:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You'd think a law student would have better things to do with his time. Really some people take the wiki too damn seriously, I mean damn this is just a freaking game for Gods sake.--Lord Wulfgar 23:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed. Suing someone for using a picture in a game Wiki falls too far into "expensive, meaningless, and bad PR" territory for this policy to be worth anything. Akule, STFU and GTFO. Slicer 17:21, 12 May 2007 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements