Difference between revisions of "User talk:Alex Warlorn"
(→Copyright Concerns: "Abandonware" stories?) |
ShadowWolf (Talk | contribs) m (→Copyright Concerns: my $0.02) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:Well, that's a good start. Which ones were you able to contact? Also, where's the hacked site? Perhaps we can contact the site admin and get it fixed. [[User:Bryan|Bryan]] 14:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | :Well, that's a good start. Which ones were you able to contact? Also, where's the hacked site? Perhaps we can contact the site admin and get it fixed. [[User:Bryan|Bryan]] 14:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
:: It sounds like what you're describing is the literary equivalent of "abandonware" software -- a work that is covered by copyright, but where the copyright owner can no longer be found, and where the work is no longer in publication (and thus cannot easily be obtained in a strictly legal way). If you look around the net, you'll find a number of abandonware sites. And if you look at them, you'll find that they tend to share a number of common characteristics: they tend to be kept separate from sites that carry more conventional types of copyrighted works; they tend to be very careful to explain what they do, and to describe how they determine that the software is really "abandoned"; they have a very clear mechanism through which someone who claims to be a copyright holder can object; and it is not uncommon that they run into legal problems anyway. Personally, I think that preserving abandoned works like this is a great thing to do. If you were to set up a site to preserve abandoned fiction of this sort, and take the risk involved in doing so, I would cheer you on. But it really needs to be separate from a more conventional site like Shifti -- think about how bad it would be if a legal problem forced all of Shifti to be taken down. [[User:Phaedrus|Phaedrus]] 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | :: It sounds like what you're describing is the literary equivalent of "abandonware" software -- a work that is covered by copyright, but where the copyright owner can no longer be found, and where the work is no longer in publication (and thus cannot easily be obtained in a strictly legal way). If you look around the net, you'll find a number of abandonware sites. And if you look at them, you'll find that they tend to share a number of common characteristics: they tend to be kept separate from sites that carry more conventional types of copyrighted works; they tend to be very careful to explain what they do, and to describe how they determine that the software is really "abandoned"; they have a very clear mechanism through which someone who claims to be a copyright holder can object; and it is not uncommon that they run into legal problems anyway. Personally, I think that preserving abandoned works like this is a great thing to do. If you were to set up a site to preserve abandoned fiction of this sort, and take the risk involved in doing so, I would cheer you on. But it really needs to be separate from a more conventional site like Shifti -- think about how bad it would be if a legal problem forced all of Shifti to be taken down. [[User:Phaedrus|Phaedrus]] 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::In this case it is rather easy to prove "abandonment" because the content in question was never offered anywhere except the net. If the canonical location is no longer available - for any reason other than the creator removing the site - then it is believable that the work has been "abandoned". Alex says that he has contacted most of the authors and has not provided any reason to not believe said claim. So in lieu of such proof that the authors did not grant permission for their works to be posted on Shifti, they can remain. However... As I've said before, the moment a copyright claim comes in, we shall respond. (In light of a recent court case I'm tempted to remove these works immediately without proof of a grant of rights... Because just knowing that the works are copyright and there might be a problem is, apparently, enough to vacate the 'Safe Harbor' provisions.) -- [[User:ShadowWolf|ShadowWolf]] 17:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:26, 3 September 2009
Welcome aboard. You may have noticed we're fixing a few things. We'll make sure your story posts are neat and tidy as you learn how the wiki works. --Buck 17:01, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Normally I don't edit user pages without explicit permission, but since yours didn't exist yet I hope you didn't mind me moving the text from your category to User:Alex Warlorn. That page is your "home" page on Shifti where you can put descriptive stuff like that. Bryan 17:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
I actually only joined because those two stories of mine got rejected for reasons I felt were both absurd, and other reasons that weren't explained to me until -after- the door was closed. And the profile owner the story is on has a grudge with me over me getting him to remove a line from a chapter of his that completely destroyed the character development of a character he hates, I wrote a chapter where said character evolved as a person, and his one line reverted her back to a delusional obsessive compulsive. So I had to basically use harsh methods to get him to remove the line, and he's never forgiven me it seems. So I felt I had to post them somewhere. 21 May 2008 User:Alex Warlorn
Copyright Concerns
The people who run Shifti do not have the money to face a copyright suit and your recent uploads of numerous Xanadu stories that you could not find the authors of is worrying. I do know that 'Liquid Courage' was written by Ed Beccerra (I hope I got his name spelled correctly) but beyond that I am in the dark as much as anyone. When it comes to copyrights we are very particular and if any complaints arrive the stories will be pulled without any hesitation. In the future please be even more careful about things like copyright. -- ShadowWolf 16:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
" 'Liquid Courage' was written by Ed Beccerra" just going by the by-line that included in the story. -Warlorn, August 22 09
- Would it be possible for you to contact the original authors for permission to post these here? If they're up on the net elsewhere, perhaps consider using external links instead of posting the content here if you can't get permission. Bryan 06:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I posted these stories here BECAUSE the websites they were on no longer exist! They were deleted by a hacker who left a comic book character showing the finger. And I contacted what authors I could and indeed got their permission. -- Warlorn Sept 3 2009
- Well, that's a good start. Which ones were you able to contact? Also, where's the hacked site? Perhaps we can contact the site admin and get it fixed. Bryan 14:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like what you're describing is the literary equivalent of "abandonware" software -- a work that is covered by copyright, but where the copyright owner can no longer be found, and where the work is no longer in publication (and thus cannot easily be obtained in a strictly legal way). If you look around the net, you'll find a number of abandonware sites. And if you look at them, you'll find that they tend to share a number of common characteristics: they tend to be kept separate from sites that carry more conventional types of copyrighted works; they tend to be very careful to explain what they do, and to describe how they determine that the software is really "abandoned"; they have a very clear mechanism through which someone who claims to be a copyright holder can object; and it is not uncommon that they run into legal problems anyway. Personally, I think that preserving abandoned works like this is a great thing to do. If you were to set up a site to preserve abandoned fiction of this sort, and take the risk involved in doing so, I would cheer you on. But it really needs to be separate from a more conventional site like Shifti -- think about how bad it would be if a legal problem forced all of Shifti to be taken down. Phaedrus 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- In this case it is rather easy to prove "abandonment" because the content in question was never offered anywhere except the net. If the canonical location is no longer available - for any reason other than the creator removing the site - then it is believable that the work has been "abandoned". Alex says that he has contacted most of the authors and has not provided any reason to not believe said claim. So in lieu of such proof that the authors did not grant permission for their works to be posted on Shifti, they can remain. However... As I've said before, the moment a copyright claim comes in, we shall respond. (In light of a recent court case I'm tempted to remove these works immediately without proof of a grant of rights... Because just knowing that the works are copyright and there might be a problem is, apparently, enough to vacate the 'Safe Harbor' provisions.) -- ShadowWolf 17:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
