Guild Wars Wiki talk:Copyrighted content

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Fair use 2 Merging 3 cc-by-sa 4 Changing incompatible content sources 5 Wikipedia 6 General question 7 Image 8 Guild wars 2 wiki?

[edit] Fair use

Emily recently posted a clarification on the fair use issue, so I suggest we add a short line about it in this policy, to further clarify. There have been quite some discussions about fair use material, so I think it would be good to mention it here now that we have an official statement from Anet. My suggestions would be to change

Content from other, non-GFDL fansites to

Content from other, non-GFDL sites. This also includes non-Guild Wars content under fair use

or add a new bullet under that first heading, saying something like

Non-Guild Wars content under Fair use

Any other/better suggestions? - anja 17:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Content from other, non-GFDL sources.
• Content from any source under Fair use, except content owned by ArenaNet or NCsoft.

poke | talk 17:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Anja's first idea is clearer. -- Indochine talk 17:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with that, Guild Wars content would also be something like Fanfics, and even if that Fanfic is not GFDL we could use it under Fair use - according to the first suggestion, but that would be wrong. And as other GFDL sites maybe allow content under Fair use, it would be wrong to say that we can copy anything from there as it is a GFDL site. poke | talk 18:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know people often don't treat it this way, but "fair use" is really tied to the usage context rather than just the content. So I suggest something like: Content from other, non-GFDL sites (regardless of whether fair use applies). --Rezyk 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

replace "sites" for "sources" (to include non-websites) and I'm fine with it :) poke | talk 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I really like Rezyk's suggestion. More clear, and more correct probably, than mine :) - anja 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

implemented. poke | talk 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy

Due to legal issues involving attribution and the GFDL, I think we should have an explicit policy on merging. -- Gordon Ecker 03:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if we need a policy or not, but a document telling how a correct merge is supposed to be done would definitely be good. With examples. - anja 07:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like what is needed is gww:how to merge, not a merging policy. --Xeeron 12:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We can't. We're not a sovereign entity. No matter what we deside, we still have to follow the copyright rules. Backsword 12:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Has any wiki anywhere ever had any drama over copyright issues? I mean people tried to claim copyright when GW was taken over and that went no-where. I don't even recall someone complaining about someone breaching copyright on any of the content on the wiki. 122.104.165.13 14:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Is any other wiki hosted by a company which uses the wiki in a commercial project like Guild Wars?

Most wikis are created by communities only without having the problem of needing to be that strict about copyright, but as ANet gives us the rules about copyrighted content, we simply have to stick to it. poke | talk 14:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If it needs to be in policy form, it belongs at GWW:COPYRIGHT; I doubt a separate policy is needed. Then, if necessary, we can have a "Help:Merging" page to show how it should be done. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights isn't a policy, it's a legal notice, however we could have a copyright policy (or a copyright guideline, or both) which would provide rules and procedures in order to prevent and deal with copyright issues. -- Gordon Ecker 04:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GWW:COPYRIGHT goes to Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrighted content, which is policy. - Tanetris 05:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanding that policy should be more straightforward, unless this new policy can have a greater scope than just on merging. -- ab.er.rant 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. I think we should take this discussion there. -- Gordon Ecker 04:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cc-by-sa

Is cc-by-sa compatible with GFDL? -- Brains12 \ talk 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia says no, but i would ask a lawyer instead :).--Fighterdoken 00:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's where I got my 'information' from when I was checking up on a possible copyvio on some Tango icons, but Aiiane and Poke told me on IRC that it is compatible. :/ -- Brains12 \ talk 00:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This article makes clear that items cannot be ported from GFDL to cc-by or cc-by-sa. CC-by to GFDL was allowed, though.

This article mentions that cc-sa or cc-by-sa has not been compatible with GFDL up to this point. I think it's safe to say that cc-by-sa 3.0 allows compatibility, but i got a headache after all the legal mumbo-jumbo that appears on the second article, so i will leave for someone else to check it.--Fighterdoken 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the full text of the GFDL, and it's basically saying the same things as the cc-by-sa 3.0 licence.. Whether they're compatible I don't really know - cc-by-sa 3.0 does say that "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: ...snip... (iv) a Creative Commons Compatible License" (Section 4b), but however, this page says no licences have been certified as CC-Compatible. Best to ask the lawyers to look at this one... -- Indochine talk 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be incompatible due to the cc-by-sa 3.0's stricter attribution requirements. -- Gordon Ecker 01:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Gordon is correct. Attribution is the fundamental point of that license, and it is not compatible with ours. Backsword 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So, when did you earn your law degree? Lord Belar 16:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing incompatible content sources

What does the community think about changing it to: Content from other, non-GFDL sources (regardless of whether fair use applies) This includes most images from search engines and commercial websites.. It makes it longer, but if people actually read this page they may understand that they can't post any random image here.
I'd like to hear thoughts on this- as I think it may be useful but do people read this page? -- Indochine talk 18:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that people don't bother to read this policy, not that they fail to understand it.. poke | talk 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, plus that wording excludes public domain and GPL sources :).--Fighterdoken 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

I am unsure of the way the changes of license from GFDL to CC-BY-SA that is happening in the Wikimedia world would affect the validity of some statements of this page. TulipVorlax 06:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA is one-way compatible to GFDL poke | talk 11:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] General question

I have been wondering this for the last day. If for example I take this image, and in Paint add a smiley on the weird kid's face, as I have edited this photo, it doesn't violate copyright. Or is it the overall content of the content that matters? I'm asking this not because it is only for discussion, but because people can actually use this to take images from everywhere, put their name in a shadow that nobody notices, and claim copyright. Titani Ertan {{Snappy the Turtle}} 11:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You cannot remove someone else's copyright by slightly changing the work yourself. When you edit something copyrighted, you have to check if the author even allows others to edit it and it isn't alone your work after it either. The original author still owns his parts of the image. poke | talk 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's derivative work article for details, particularly the section about derivative works in American law. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Hi. I've been contacted multiple time by many users if I could release the image I took for gwiki under gfdl so they can reupload them here. I know I can't since Anet don't want that content under gfdl and I personally don't want to take the time to reupload them here under the proper liscense. Do I even have to give permission for someone else to reupload the images since they ( in my mind ) belong to Anet? --Aratak 15:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If they are screenshots or something from the game, than yes, you don't own the images and as such cannot rerelease them. However everything else, such as content and graphical elements not taken from ANet are your property and you have to rerelease them (or explicitely allow them to be used). poke | talk 15:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guild wars 2 wiki?

can we use info that's posted on the guild wars2 wiki? i ask because some of the articles there have a lot of good lore that could be used in the articles here like the Mursaat vs Mursaat - Zesbeer 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the 2 wiki's are compatible. -- Wyn talk 01:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks wyn. - Zesbeer 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd still need to provide attribution for the edits you're copying over, which is usually done by linking to the source article('s history page). If you want to be more specific than that, say for only copying one or two edits, link to the edit diffs themselves. That can be done in the edit summary, and I think it can also be done on the talk page.

Copyright details aside, be sure that the information you're copying over is relevant to this wiki - some Guild Wars 2 stuff is irrelevant to Guild Wars, which is what this wiki is for. -- pling 13:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)