Guild Wars Wiki talk:Copyrighted content

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Fair use 2 cc-by-sa 3 Changing incompatible content sources

[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] 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)