Guild Wars Wiki talk:Copyrighted content/Draft-02-15-2010

...Brought to you by

Wasn't the copyright policy provided (or at least approved) by Arenanet/NCSoft, ostensibly by their lawyers? I don't think we need to go about changing something like that. If you want to provide a FAQ or something, I think that would be more helpful/beneficial. -- FreedomBound 13:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then feel free to show proof, but I don't believe it was, at least as far as "written by" goes. Seems too unclear (and a bit long considering the clarity), but maybe that's just me. And also, the page has apparently been edited by users to clarify things before, or at least such changes have been discussed (presumably without ANet or NC involved), see the talk page. But if you can show that they wrote/approved this and need to be approached about such changes, then please do. I don't want to be stepping over any bounds, of course. --Kyoshi (Talk) 14:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at the history of the page, and the edit summary here, it seems like it was provided by them. I'm quite certain that I don't understand all the intricacies involved, though, so don't mind me, it was just a thought. Edit: This one added in the terms for the feedback update, and again, it came from Emily. -- FreedomBound 14:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights is written by ArenaNet. The Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrighted content policy was written by the community based on the copyrights allowed by ArenaNet. -- Wyn talk 14:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So as long as they say the same thing, the second one can be changed to be more easily understood? Which is what Kyoshi's trying to do, which means I have no clue what I'm talking about (which is kind of what I figured in the first place). Sorry Kyoshi. -- FreedomBound 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated - I think this should be made a subpage of GWW:Copyrighted content, as explained at Guild Wars Wiki:Policy (use something like Guild Wars Wiki:Policy/Draft20091119 to see how it should be named/formatted). I think more people will notice a subpage than a userpage, and the subpage has the extra advantages of being easier to locate in future, and being able to view the differences via the template. -- pling 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Wyn: thanks for clarifying, that's exactly what I mean. I'm slow on the draw and I scrutinize my edits too much. ^^;;

@Freedom: No worries at all, I did request that concerns be brought up, and you did as I asked. I appreciate the intent.

@Pling: I planned to do that after I made sure the version was cleaned up, so I didn't look silly by having 319812364 problems with my version when I suggested it, and hopefully could just have /agrees and sigs plastered over its discussion and move smoothly. Perhaps unnecessary, I admit. I will move it over if nobody presents problems with it, or once I fix problems brought up. Thanks --Kyoshi (Talk) 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see - that's perfectly fine. -- pling 15:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think I remember seeing a tag for proposed policy changes, do you happen to know what it is? I should probably add it to the page when I move it. --Kyoshi (Talk) 15:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Policy_modification, I believe. -- FreedomBound 15:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks right, thanks. --Kyoshi (Talk) 16:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

@Freedom - yes. This policy can't allow any additional things, like "Fair Use" or other types of licenses. This simply addresses how we deal with copyrighted content as far as tags and deletions, etc. -- Wyn talk 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Phase 2

Unless any problems are brought up in the next few days, I'm going to move this to a subpage of the policy and tag it as a suggested change. --Kyoshi (Talk) 15:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

iirc Wikipedia is no longer GFDL, it's CC-BY-SA 3.0 now. ~ PheNaxKian 22:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but I had thought that said cc-by-sa was compatible with GFDL. However, the current policy's talk page says this isn't true; I'll edit that part in a while. If you have a suggestion for the wording (if there's another well-known or relevant wiki with GFDL-compatible licensing to replace Wikipedia's link with) It'd be very helpful to me. --Kyoshi (Talk) 04:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving

to a policy subpage. --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give this until a week after the elections' end before I implement the change myself. I know elections take a lot of attention from other affairs on the wiki so I'm going to be patient. --Kyoshi (Talk) 19:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reads well, imo. I am not fully convinced that "policy" is the right title for this (Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights is the real deal, all we can do here is interpret and clarify ... especially, unlike other policies, we can not substancially alter this), but it might still be for the best, to make sure it is prominently linked from the policies page. --Xeeron 13:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights is the rules laid out by ArenaNet and NCsoft. Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrighted content is putting those rules in easier-to-read terms, and so it is also policy, just worded differently. Also, the previous version was labeled as policy. I don't think it's a major issue, but if you really want to take it up with somebody, I'm not your man. --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a policy in that it addresses how copyright violations are to be dealt with, but as I indicated in the section below, it should also address how copyright (licensing) is identified on images through the use of the tags we have available. -- Wyn talk 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current policy

It is perfectly clear. Drogo Boffin 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Read up. Make sure to check the link I posted there as well so you know the context of the question.

The current version is redundant and that redundancy makes it unclear. YOU might understand it perfectly, but as best I'm aware you've also been here longer than I have. I'm relatively new to this wiki business and it doesn't make sense to me; isn't making sense of it for people who don't know how it works supposed to be what this policy does? If my version is any more unclear than the current policy then please point it out. --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that taking out the "cannot use" section is bad, since that was pretty concise. And also, it's quicker and easier to point out that it is wrong than it is to point out that it doesn't fall under what's allowed. --JonTheMon 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) ^ Drogo Boffin 18:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The "cannot use" section was just saying what was said in the "can use" section, but more vaguely. Saying "in general" and "cannot be assumed" rather than a certain "can not" will require that you look at the allowed content instead anyway, to be certain. (Or maybe that's just how I look at it. But I prefer to be certain over going on a hunch with a statement that doesn't spell out "thou shalt not".) Being certain is more important than getting the quickest answer, and this is a relatively short read even by internet standards. If we can make the entire policy into the negative, so that you can easily point out what's wrong rather than what isn't right like you suggest, then that would be fine with me (though it seems it would just be one long sentence with several parenthetical statements, about the length of the "compatible content" section as it now stands and twice as clumsy). But having two unclear sections just doesn't equal one clear one. --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Five is right out". All I'm really asking for is to retain a summary section with maybe some of the most common questions/issues. Yes, it is short, but people really don't like reading all of a policy. --JonTheMon 19:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jon. Redundancy in legal-type documents are very common since most people don't read through the entire document. Keeping redundancy for me makes sense in a policy like this because most will just read the section they want to know about, or applies to their current situation. Besides the original isn't really that unclear to me, and the new version didn't seem clearer. I do like some the the additional information on the new version that talks about guildwiki and some of the contributions are under GFDL and about images. --Lania Elderfire 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The GuildWiki link was on the original policy, so it's not exactly an addition. And again, I'm pretty sure everyone commenting on this has been around longer than I have, and are already familiar with most of the rules (though not necessarily the word of the policy), but I'm new to this and the policy seems vague, or as if it could be interpreted incorrectly.

I understand the summary point, I suppose, but the way it was presented in the original policy just created uncertainty. As long as it's clear enough I have no problem with including it in some form. I'll edit the text at the top of the "Compatible sources" section to hopefully meet your request; tell me what you think once I'm done.

Incidentally, I can't remember how public domain works are treated once used under GFDL. I've placed what I think in the article (second bullet point) but if someone could give me a definite answer I'd appreciate it. --Kyoshi (Talk) 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So because we have been here longer, you are not accepting our feedback? I understand you are trying to make this easier to understand by new contributors, but please do not take that road. Public domain is public domain. That doesn't change because someone loads it on a GFDL site, it just has to be tagged as public domain. The policy does need to have at least some sort of "Not Allowed" section that specifies clearly the most common things that are just flat out not allowed - like icons/logos from other games or software, because it is not actually stated anywhere in your draft, though it IS Anet's position, images that would otherwise fall under "Fair Use" are not allowed, and that needs to be included as it is the most often violated copyright issue we have to deal with here. This includes images of copyrighted software (screenshots of software interfaces), etc. You may feel that causes "uncertainty" but as Jon said, it's much easier to point to a section that says "Not allowed" than to have to convince someone that their particular image isn't compatible. -- Wyn talk 20:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I still think a quick rule-of-thumb line might be nice somewhere above the header. Like, something along the lines of "The general rule-of-thumb is that only GFDL content (ex. Wikipedia), ArenaNet, or content you own is allowed; this explicitly excludes content from GuildWiki, other games, and software programs." I dunno if that's broad/vague/correct enough, but it should cover most of the cases. --JonTheMon 20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It might also be worth including in the policy the licensing tags that are required on images (this should also be included in GWW:IMAGES). We have tags for {{ArenaNet image}}, {{GFDL image}}, {{Public domain image}}, {{Screenshot}}, and {{Fansite kit image}} that all indicate the licensing terms the image is loaded under, and at least one of these is required on every image. -- Wyn talk 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait... i thought the original idea when the change proposal was first discussed was to "make clear that not everything on wikipedia was allowed as GFDL compatible anymore"? I guess that got lost somewhere.

As far as changes go, i think Wyn is right that it would be best to make a clear statement about requiring the proper use of templates, and maybe add the need to give proper attribution when dealing with GFDL content (which none does).

A statement leaving clear that "Content only covered by Fair Use is not allowed here" is fine too.--Fighterdoken 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Another point I want to make here is that most casual wiki users don't read policy and making the language of the copyright policy so the wikilayman can easily understand and retain it is probably impossible. Copyright as a law and license is a very complicated issue, and it can only be broken down so far to simplify it so much. Any more simplifications and certain things will be left out that needs to be there. I think it might be better to make the language of the policy so that sysops and other users versed in policy and copyrights can understand it to basically cover all the bases because as wyn noted, there are certain things missing in the draft. To make it accessible for the rest of us we could have some section as Jon said to have a summary breaking down the policy down to its core so anyone can read that part easily and understand it. It creates redundancy but imo redundancy isn't bad for something like this. --Lania Elderfire 06:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Wyn: "So because we have been here longer, you are not accepting our feedback?" I'm sorry, I must have been unclear. What I meant was, you have been here longer, you have worked with previous disputes regarding items under the jurisdiction of this policy, you know the rules, and so it may be clearer to you out of habit rather than the policy actually being completely clear, which is how it seems to me, and has seemed since I brought this proposal up and posted a RFC several months ago. As far as the templates, if those are all of them, then I can certainly work them into the page.

"Public domain is public domain." Gotcha.

@Jon: "I still think a quick rule-of-thumb line might be nice somewhere above the header." I just made a few changes, now that I get where you meant you wanted it. Tell me what you think again.

@Fighterdoken: "i thought the original idea when the change proposal was first discussed was to "make clear that not everything on wikipedia was allowed as GFDL compatible anymore"?" Not quite. A similar change was proposed on the current policy's talk page, though it doesn't seem it was ever implemented. My clarification was based on this issue, that the wording was vague. I'd like to hope that this is some kind of improvement so far, and I'm glad to be finally getting some feedback on it.

@Lania: I think I met your concept. I certainly see how redundancy could be okay here; I'm not a copyright expert but I read up on it a bit during the Orphan Works scare among artists a few years back, so I do know more than the average layman. Sorry if my perspective on this seemed a little narrow. --Kyoshi (Talk) 07:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I expanded it a little to include (and explain) each of the licensing tags, and made a slight wording change. While I would still prefer to see a Not Allowed section, I can live with this. -- Wyn talk 07:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the template additions, Wyn. The "not allowed" section was turned into the header text; if that's what you're saying you can live with, then okay, but I can't tell if you noticed. --Kyoshi (Talk) 07:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, and yes I can live with it, that is my concession to consensus. I just believe it would be clearer if a few of those things that are just never ok under any circumstances were defined, like the things I listed earlier. A small blurb even at the top that indicates that fair use stuff isn't allowed is relatively easily missed or misunderstood, where as a section of it's own that basically says "Just NO" would make it very simple for the average user to understand about this very intricate and often confusing subject. -- Wyn talk 07:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again. I tried to make the header a little clearer the way you said, and I'll ponder making a separate section for the "forbiddens" again, since that seems to be a popular suggestion. But for now, I ought to catch up on sleep. --Kyoshi (Talk) 08:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit actually looks great, Jon. The GuildWiki line is fine with me, we mention it specifically only because it has information relevant to the needs of this wiki and people might think it can be used freely. --Kyoshi (Talk) 17:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We actually mention it because the people who built this wiki all came from there to begin with, and it was put in to make it clear that stuff couldn't be copied over wholesale (unless they were the ones that wrote it to begin with). -- Wyn talk 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that, but we can have more than one reason. In any case it's worth having there.

If anyone else has any comments or concerns, go ahead and speak up. I really appreciate the input so far. --Kyoshi (Talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

One week warning, round two.

As in, if no more concerns are brought up, I'll implement this change by next week Friday-ish, or whenever I get around to it. --Kyoshi (Talk) 07:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine by me, but I wouldn't go implementing it willy-nilly. You want consensus on the talk page, not inactivity. Get peoples attention to the new one, then implement it if the community likes it. There is no "time limit" on a policy draft; it'll take as long as it takes. (Unless I really missed something in my inactivity.) -- Wandering Traveler 23:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the change on the section of GWW:POLICY for proposed policy changes for about a month now. I have had a request for comment up since January, and have been working on it personally since then, because the only comments relevant to the draft itself have come up in the past two weeks. I have addressed issues in the above section, and nobody who has commented has brought up any further issues with the current version. Unless there is some standard of consensus I'm missing, I currently have it from anyone who cares about policy changes enough (and takes me seriously enough) to comment constructively and continue to work on (or argue for scrapping) the draft.

I do appreciate your concern, and I apologize if I sound a bit rude; I haven't exactly been sleeping enough lately and I've apparently come across that way a few times. But in all honesty, if you know of some method I'm not currently calling which I should be to get fuller approval, I would certainly like to know. --Kyoshi (Talk) 09:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have probably gotten about as much discussion about this topic as you are going to, though don't be surprised if when it's implemented, you have people coming back (who haven't bothered to be involved in the discussion) and making comments questioning it. -- Wyn talk 09:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about what I figured. Sometimes this system exhausts me. --Kyoshi (Talk) 16:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's a lot better and probably ready to be implemented... Hang in there, it's almost implemented! ^_^. --Lania Elderfire 04:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)