UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Page ownership and copyrights

1st Header

Agreed, but add a clause that users have four weeks to remove any content which they don't want to be in the public domain. I wouldn't want my face to be in the public domain for life :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 19:46, 17 May 2011 (BST)

As the Haggers. (Except we should make Hagnat keep his face on the wiki forever).--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:18, 17 May 2011 (BST)

I don't know if this would actually even apply to current content, but I'll add a clause to give a "changeover period". It should also be noted that this policy doesn't invalidate any current wiki policy: You can still request content deleted in the manner in which we do now; it merely stops you from being able to say "that policy is my copyright and I want it deleted immediately" or "that page was partly written by me and I want all my contributions removed as they are my copyright".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:54, 17 May 2011 (BST)

For images, i think the most proper approach would be to have some sort of rules for their usage... my face image, for example, is supposed to be mine for my own use, and no other user is supposed to be using it around. Have the rules address that as well, allowing users to limit who can use their images and where, being public domain the default limitation --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:00, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Agreed. Though doessn't current policy already allows the original author to have images deleted anyway. I think the best way to make certain is to specify this as applying to "text".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:34, 17 May 2011 (BST)

It wouldn't matter. The way you've worded this shit basically hands "Urban Dead Wiki" the right to do whatever the fuck it wants with anything uploaded or edited here as text. Izzy's little "issue" of late, for instance, would cease to matter as "UD Wiki" HAS UNLIMITED PUBLISHING RIGHTS OVER EVERYTHING on it. Users would cease to have any say what-so-ever over their own fucking user page if "UD Wiki" so wished it. Fuck. You.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:45 17 May 2011(UTC)

It's the way almost every other website works: As I mentioned Wikipedia has a much stricter copyright policy where you effectively make any content you post public domain. This does not counteract existing policies on content (The same way Wikipedia's policy doesn't affect the right to vanish), it merely means that you can't threaten lawsuits to get your contributions removed. Iscariot would still have the right to have his page deleted, but his legal threats would be even more baseless than they are now. If you have any constructive changes to suggest than feel free to make them.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:20, 17 May 2011 (BST)

No, under this thing you suggest he wouldn't have the right. He'd have the privilege. That could be taken away at any time.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:39 17 May 2011(UTC)

I would argue that current policy explicitly grants him the right, and that the only way to change that would be to get a vote through A/PD. Technically, most permissions on the wiki are privileges which could be taken away at any time through a simple A/PD.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:51, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, no shit, there, Captain Obvious.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:32 17 May 2011(UTC)

Ow, and btw, A/BP was MOSTLY written by ME, and i wants my contributions removed ;) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:02, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Probably; I believe that the original draft was written by me but it was then changed significantly so I don't know how much of my content is still there (which opens up another reason why user copyright of content is a bad idea.)--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:34, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Fuck off

Fuck off.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:49 17 May 2011(UTC)

yeaboi! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:52, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Policy?

You've mentioned policy a few times but this isn't the correct space to get something passed as policy. You probably want to take it to A/PD if you want it to be binding. ~ _{21:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)}

herp derp --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:17, 17 May 2011 (BST)

I put it here because I was looking for a somewhat informal discussion without the constraints of a policy discussion. I'm also not entirely planning to put this up as an immediate policy discussion: I'm planning to take this to Kevan as he's the one who actually bears the risk on this.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:04, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, nothing wrong with getting a consensus. I just saw that you mentioned this as a policy a few times and thought you might have wrongfully put it in OD. ~ _{22:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)}

UDWiki:Copyrights

Please let me know if we are following UDWiki:Copyrights. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:23, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Can of Worms

Okay, so if you do this sort of change, what are we going to do with the content that was previously published by users who no longer go here? They didn't agree to these proposed terms, and might object to the UDWiki just claiming that they have a "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, edit, modify, adapt, publish, translate, communicate to the public, perform and display the submitted content (in whole or in part) worldwide for the full term of any rights that may exist in the content. " I imagine then, when we have content that the user did not agree to, that we will immediately delete that content prior to this sort of rule coming into effect. That way, if the person who created the content wants it re-integrated to the UDwiki, then they can go to A/U and request the undelete, thus giving their permission.

In addition, this proposal does not address third-party copyrighted content that is not owned by the person who publishes it to the wiki, such as Umbrella Corporation. I assume at that example, we will have to resubmit our request to Capcom to the allowance to use any of their submitted content with a "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, edit, modify, adapt, publish, translate, communicate to the public, perform and display the submitted content (in whole or in part) worldwide for the full term of any rights that may exist in the content. " and/or be required to enforce UDWiki:Copyrights. Thus removing all content that is not royalty free or granted permission by the copyright holder for use on the UDWiki (who will, for some reason, agreed to grant a "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, edit, modify, adapt, publish, translate, communicate to the public, perform and display the submitted content (in whole or in part) worldwide for the full term of any rights that may exist in the content. "). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:23, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Simple solution: This only applies to new content. If there is a dispute, simply check the date of the edit against the date the copyright text was changed.

As for copyrighted content, the edit form specifically states You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see UDWiki:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! - by posting the content then you are certifying that you have the right to do so. I have, however, made a minor change to address this.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:35, 17 May 2011 (BST)

So then we are going to follow UDWiki:Copyrights? Also, in that event, it does nothing to address the original case that brought it up, as all of Iscariot's content was published to the wiki prior to this going into play. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:46, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Yes, the idea is to make UDWiki:Copyrights sane enough that we can actually follow it. I don't think there's much that can really be done about previous content: this is the sort of thing that should have been done when the wiki was first created.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:58, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Yes...but, that will cause a lot of people to rebel against this, as you stated: "Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!", which means there would have to be a great culling of images and pages. Basically, no one wants to follow UDWiki:Copyrights at all, so convincing them to make the change might be easy, but that is only because they won't follow it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:02, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Technically, the "Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!" is part of the edit form, so people are supposed to be bound by it when they post. It's true that no one wants to follow UDWiki:Copyrights, but ignoring it only works so long as no one actually takes object to any of our content. I'm just trying to right something which will cover us a bit if someone actually decides to hold us to what we agree to every time we post.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:11, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Yes, and the policy states: "The Urban Dead Wiki prohibits the usage of copyrighted material in anyway way shape or form without the express consent of the original owner of such material. This includes the usage of logos and other forms of intellectual property. " If you are planning on just making the change to the policy in the event that someone requests that their work be deleted, then that is one thing. However, I don't see why you just don't allow people to have their work deleted or changed if someone wants it done. I believe that is the current way that the sysops are "following" UDWiki:Copyrights (I.e. if a copyright holder requests that their content be removed, they remove it). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:36, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Also, won't this effectively nullify the majority of requests for A/D and A/SD, and specifically Crit 7 of A/SD, as the edit to the policy states: "However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain so licensed until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death)." Meaning that once work is submitted, it cannot be removed. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:47, 17 May 2011 (BST)

I feel that it is impossible to enforce retroactively given the number of years that it has been enforced. The point is this: Copyright extends to anything someone has written on this wiki. In other words, under the current rules there are some legal grounds for someone to demand that we delete every single post they've ever made on the whole wiki. The idea of this proposal is to officially codify what we are currently doing to make it legally soundish (IANAL).

No. This gives us the "right" to use their content if we wish to do so, and they cannot retract that right It doesn't mean that we have to use it; we still have the option to remove it. An A/D or A/SD is a request for that content to be removed. What the proposal means is that they cannot force us to remove content against our will.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:04, 18 May 2011 (BST)

I believe the wording should be expanded to explain this difference (or at least a subsection explaining what it means to the layperson). However, I feel that it would indeed nullify Crit 7 of A/SD, as we would have to put items to be deleted up on A/D to see if people wouldn't mind if the page was deleted or not (I.e. your response about the option of the wiki to use the information against the author's wishes). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:25, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Yes, I'm planning to add an explanatory note for those people who find legal documents somewhat opaque (which they are). I would argue that the "option of the wiki" doesn't require a full community vote, because an admin can make a decision on behalf of the wiki.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:48, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Altered to use Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA

It actually does most of what we want and it's written in nicer language that's less likely to scare people.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:11, 17 May 2011 (BST)

See, I'd support a full "post it here, it becomes public domain" policy with the exception of stuff that was already copyrighted. You don't want the risk of it being used then don't post it. Simple enough.       04:03, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Kevan's Words Kevan's Choice

Can we just have someone actually ask the big guy if he'd be ok with this change then implement it based on his desires? He's responsible for it, he's the one that wrote the first one, and we have no place even trying to have a say in it beyond running it through him. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:40, 18 May 2011 (BST)

The edit notice copyright warning is the default boilerplate; I can't tell who wrote UDWiki:Copyrights, as the history has been wiped. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:06, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Traced some of the history: It appears Kevan was one of the initial contributors, but not the only one. If I had to guess, I'd say the first paragraph was him, with subsequent parts being added later. Given that I couldn't find different revisions, I can't be certain. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:11, 19 May 2011 (BST)

That is the reason why this is not a policy discussion: I was planning on getting some sort of consensus and then taking it to Kevan for approval. I don't want to go to him and say "Hey, I don't think that our current copyright policy is suitable; could you fix it please?", as he normally prefers to see community discussion (Remember, he's only ever vetoed one policy discussion and that was based on a single highly-abusable clause).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:01, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Indeed. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:11, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Options

I certainly think it couldn't hurt to let people know that they have options with regard to the copyright status of their contributions; it's certainly worth making this more clear, seeing that the “in perpetuity” clauses are meant to generally cover the site owner for backups, etc. (In fact, it might be worth checking the TOS.) At the moment the only person who can delete content from the server is Kevan; sysops can delete revisions from view, but they are still retained in the database.

That said, I do not believe this policy as it stands to be a workable solution. As-is, users are implicitly giving the right to publish their material by way of agreeing to the default edit page boilerplate:

“	Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see UDWiki:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!	”
—Copyright warning

However, they do in fact retain the right to withdraw their contributions, subject to fair use. (IANAL.)

Basically, I believe this to be overkill simply because, at the end of the day, this is just a wiki for an online game; it's not like Wikipedia where they have to worry about redistribution rights. If someone wants to take their toys and go home, it's not like their contributions can't be replaced easily if it's game-related, or simply be discarded if it's group or user-specific. No big loss. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:59, 18 May 2011 (BST)

So it would be okay with you if a frequent contributor demanded that we delete all posts they've every made from the wiki? If, for example, a sysop or ex-sysop demanded that all their posts were deleted then we would be required to completely trash our records by removing A/M and A/VB rulings.

On a side note: The UK doesn't have a concept of fair use, we have a much more limited concept of fair dealing.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 07:58, 18 May 2011 (BST)

I think that's actually a side issue and doesn't need to be discussed. Basically, this policy doesn't change how we react to requests for existing content; it only changes how we react to requests for new content. As such, it doesn't change what is already the status quo, so there is no point in arguing it. The policy isn't trying to suggest a better way of managing existing content, but rather a better way of managing future content, which really should have been in place from day 1. —Aichon— 20:40, 18 May 2011 (BST)