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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Fuck off
Fuck off.--
| T | BALLS! | 19:49 17 May 2011(UTC)
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)
- 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. ~
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...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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
