City of IF

Chinaren · Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 5:11 pm Post subject: Copyright.

As Smee has repeatedly pointed out, the sites terms of use include the below clause (in fact it's all they say)

Quote: Terms of Use
The content of all storygames is copyright their respective authors. All other content is copyright the City of IF. Any suggestions or ideas you contribute to a storygame become the property of the storygame author. Any other suggestions or ideas that you contribute to the site become the property of the City of IF. You do not obtain any rights of ownership either to the story ideas or to the written content by posting suggestions or otherwise participating in this site.

(Emphasis added)

Now I'll admit I didn't consider this properly before, but I shall certainly not be posting any material other than Sgames or suggestions for them on this here whilst this remains as it is. (Okay, barring this kind of post and general banter).

Basically, as I read it, anything posted on the site that's not a SGame is IF's 'property'.

Now I'm sure this isn't what Key intended when he put it up, and there are surely a whole ton more laws that could be thrown at this, but, for example, if I put up a linear tale, then according to this statement, IF owns copyright.

Again, I appreciate that Key no doubt didn't mean this, but he's now the owner (subject to a load of legal wrangling) of hundreds of stories, pictures, poems and so on.

I like to see this changed please.

HalfEmptyHero · Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 5:14 pm Post subject:

A valid point. I was picturing the various artwork that people have posted, hadn't even though of the linear stories and poetry etc.

Thunderbird · Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 5:16 pm Post subject:

Yes, should include ALL POSTED material by any registered user.

Crunchyfrog · Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 3998

Thunderbird wrote: Yes, should include ALL POSTED material by any registered user.

Mmm. Not quite. But IF has evolved and the terms do need to be clarified to reflect that.

All SGs, Linear, Poetry, and Artwork that is posted solely to show off the Artists's work (e.g. BBS's stuff) should be copyright the author/artist. As currently in the terms, all suggestions to DPs should remain copyright the author.

All other contributions to the site should remain a part of, and belong to the site. By that I mean features, events, and artwork produced specifically as an integral part of those features and events.

Other users should be able to re-use these 'other contributions' within the site provided that it remains on the site and is used for that same purpose. This would go for a simple award (like an IFday award) right up to the forum symbols (like the Jester) and the City of IF logo.

My tuppence worth.

It goes without saying that anyone who reproduces anything here on another site, or uses copyrighted material from outside the site would of course face the wrath of the copyright laws.

There may well be some tweaks needed to accommodate grey areas but I believe the above would be a good starting point for revising it.

Thunderbird · Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 11:15 pm Post subject:

Copywrite law is funny stuff.

It can be fought and argued in courts on the loosest of bases. This makes a copyright clause a bit tough but not necessarily something a lawyer needs to draft. The trick is to be VERY ultra specific.

In fact, most of the material here is probably safer than most material anywhere as there is such a solid record of its posting here. The paper trail of proof can be quite strong if needbe.

But it is worthy to make an attempt to clarify a couple of very important things. I think of the poetry on the site for one.

Nevertheless, I COMPLETELY agree with the concepts put forth by you CF.

From a logic point I'd like to add a clarification:
Quote: All other contributions to the site (I think we should be going for "All other contributions posted in the vein of generating SITE activity, or expanding the overall culture of the site")should remain a part of, and belong to the site. By that I mean features, events, and artwork produced specifically as an integral part of those features and events. If you look carefully, there could be a massively mis-construed difference. I'm not suggesting I know how to say all that in lawyer speak so much but that's the general concept of what I think we're going for, no?

Furthermore, the site should admit no copywrite over material, such as graphics, borrowed from other locations for use here and profess that such cannot be made copywrite for the author or poster.

Lebrenth · Joined: 29 Dec 2005 Posts: 1483 Location: Utah

Let's discuss "The City!". If I understand correctly, The City! is essentially a creative directory for personal threads and it was created by Chinaren while he was operating as Mayor. This seems to be a perfect example of what the provision in the terms was for. It has become part of the operation of the site and it was created in an official capacity so the City of IF claims it according to its terms of use. However it is Chinaren's project, created much like many other intellectual works that he clearly owns, so he has a claim to its ownership as well.

How do you feel about this Chinaren? Anyone else have any comments?

Thunderbird · Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 11:27 am Post subject:

I believe he cannot be disallowed from utilizing the concept (as concepts are generally more covered by patent rather than copywrite anyhow) anywhere he so pleases.

At the same time, I don't think he should have any provision to lay claim to it such that he could request we don't use it here, as it has been given to the city in the name of being a city activity - not simply one of his personal creative pursuits, such as authoring, artwork, or poetry.

Just my take on it.

HalfEmptyHero · Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 11:30 am Post subject:

I don't believe he has any intellectual rights over The City! as it isn't overly unique in any way or form. It is simply a forum where people are allowed to talk about what they want. Referring to the grid he created, I also think it is not unique enough to warrant intellectual property. It is simply a map grid, which is something Chinaren did not invent. I can vaguely remember reading about this topic a year or two ago, and while I can't remember the exact phrasing, I know that there has to be a certain level of creativity to be able to call it intellectual property. Even without the terms of agreement I don't think Chinaren would have any claims over it.

The White Blacksmith · Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 2629

Lebrenth wrote: it was created by Chinaren while he was operating as Mayor.

I think this is the important bit. He created it as an attempt to expand the site and he did it in the role of an administrator. Not only that, but it's a role we elected him to, in the understanding that it would be used to improve the city, NOT as a personal endeavor. Now, I'm not nescessarily claiming that anything done while mayor is automatically official business, but I think we can safely assume something on that scale would be credited to the office of mayor, rather than the incumbent mayor, just as we should not credit the system of stratagems and legends to T-bird (sorry, man).

Thunderbird · Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 1:27 pm Post subject:

I take no offense as I tend to agree completely. My only question would be how to effectively WORD these nebulous boundaries in the Copywrite clause?

Chinaren · Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 2:14 pm Post subject:

HalfEmptyHero wrote: I don't believe he has any intellectual rights over The City! Referring to the grid he created, I also think it is not unique enough to warrant intellectual property. It is simply a map grid, which is something Chinaren did not invent. I can vaguely remember reading about this topic a year or two ago, and while I can't remember the exact phrasing, I know that there has to be a certain level of creativity to be able to call it intellectual property. Even without the terms of agreement I don't think Chinaren would have any claims over it.

The grid map isn't unique in the sense that it's just a load of hyperlinks put together, but then stories aren't unique in that they're just a load of words put together. In this case it's not the creation method but the creation itself.

I actually created the map and graphics offline, on my own PC in my own time, then uploaded to IF. I wasn't paid for them and therefore I do believe I can claim copyright of the grid and the graphics I created, just like any other creative work. The fact I was admin at the time is not relevant. No one asked me to do this, I just did it as a kind of experiment, and would have even done it if I wasn't admin.

That said, perhaps there's a third option:

Work such as this should remain copyright of the creator but can be licensed to IF for an unlimited amount of time and for free. Such works can be modified on IF for the purposes for which it was created for as long as it is not sold, used on other sites or similar.

There are numerous international types of copyright licenses around, I've used some when publishing my ebooks on sites. Perhaps we could use one of these?

Basically I retain copyright and the right to do as I wish with the concept and my graphics elsewhere, but IF retains the right to keep and use them. Unless Key wants to buy them. ;)

The point is it's one of my posts, and the content here shouldn't be relevant. Any person's posts should remain their copyright, and not IFs.

This is slightly off topic BTW. I'd still like the TOS changed.

HalfEmptyHero · Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 2:48 pm Post subject:

Chinaren wrote:
The grid map isn't unique in the sense that it's just a load of hyperlinks put together, but then stories aren't unique in that they're just a load of words put together. In this case it's not the creation method but the creation itself.

I actually created the map and graphics offline, on my own PC in my own time, then uploaded to IF. I wasn't paid for them and therefore I do believe I can claim copyright of the grid and the graphics I created, just like any other creative work. The fact I was admin at the time is not relevant. No one asked me to do this, I just did it as a kind of experiment, and would have even done it if I wasn't admin.

The graphics are another story, it was the concept itself I was speaking about. You created the graphics, so I believe you would have the right to take them down if desired. I'm no lawyer, and copyright laws are both vague and plentiful.

Thunderbird · Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 3:37 pm Post subject:

[quote="'Ren]Basically I retain copyright and the right to do as I wish with the concept and my graphics elsewhere, but IF retains the right to keep and use them. Unless Key wants to buy them.

The point is it's one of my posts, and the content here shouldn't be relevant. Any person's posts should remain their copyright, and not IFs. [/quote]
I'm thinking that this is how it should apply to just about everything. It's a shared copywrite in a sense, with the site itself. If IF wishes to quote someone who posted here in say a newspaper, then they should have the authority to do so.

Furthermore none should have the authority to say the City can't use their works as they posted them here, in some limited fashion, including to retain them on the site.

However, I would also balk at IF taking and publishing a book from a story posted here for profit for the city. THAT would be highly offensive. So somehow, THAT line needs to be defined.