Wrangler
03/28/17 04:55 PM
131.239.31.200
|
Ok, I apologize not posting here first. However, i am use to using the forums for our wiki.
This is regarding something important that has come up on the bg.battletech.com's forums about someone asking content of MechWarrior Online being posted into articles on Sarna.
Sarna & MWO
I strongly respect Frabby's points of view and unwavering dedication to our wiki. He posted in that thread that all the material from that game posted, however the recent post about it alarms me bit.
I think there should be a discussion about this issue which could end up closing down Sarna if we don't addressed it now. Essentially, we do not have PERMISSION to post PGI related material on the forums. Images/pictures/etc. We've been fortunate to post CGL / TOPPs related material on here, when a line developer of Battletech drops a hint there may be trouble brewing potentially over the horizon, then i think we need make decisions about this.
I've reach out to Nic and given him a link to this post which is now locked on Battletech forums.
I mean not to be alarmist, but Revanche (I believe it was him) made the decision to remove all fandom from Sarna.net. We do Mentioning old video (defunct) game as product was done as well, but not listing of content unless it was canonized.
The point is PGI is active property, without permission from them, no matter our good intentions, they may be compelled to launch legal challenge to Sarna to remove all content related to them.
I was not fan of having video game references included (stats, imagery beyond what was necessary) that for a video game wiki. I rather NOT have players getting confused with PGI related materials thinking that it's canon. NO matter what tags we put on it warning that a certain section is not canon.
We owe it to the players to safeguard Sarna. It not totally respected by staff and players but it does provide information and preserves our fable game.
When it hits the fan, make sure your locked, loaded, and ready to go!
|
BrokenMnemonic
03/29/17 04:27 AM
82.110.109.208
|
I was going to post in more detail, but the short version is this: I agree with Wrangler. CGL tolerates us, probably because we don't threaten their revenue and they've never been asked to make a statement on whether or not we're allowed to do what we do; I suspect that if they were forced to comment, they'd be required to shut us down. The thread on the CGL forum has someone who is in a position to know exactly where things stand with PGI telling us that we shouldn't include PGI material in here. That's about as close to the word of God as it needs to be for us to pay attention and do exactly what's been recommended: not include any PGI material. If someone else wants to create a PGI wiki with game details in, then by all means lets link to it. If someone wants to do a one-page article here in review format of the PGI game, then fine... but that should be it. We've effectively had a warning not to include PGI material here, and I think it should be heeded.
|
Frabby
03/29/17 08:46 AM
84.180.89.101
|
I got the feeling that something was maybe lost in translation for me, which is why I withdrew from that thread.
Sarna.net BTW is a fan project pertaining to a commercial fictional universe setting. As such it is obviously heavily reliant on the goodwill of the IP holders of the products covered on the wiki.
However, I don't see how that could be a problem given that we're (at least trying to) provide impartial and objective coverage of the BattleTech universe and everything that has to do with it. We're providing the IP holders with what is essentially free customer support, fan service, and product promotion from a strictly economical viewpoint, and I like to believe that the Sarna BTW project is even at least somewhat useful to the IP owners as a tool for grooming and expanding the universe.
I don't think anyone disputed that; and my impression is that the IP holders are either indifferent, tolerant or outright happy about Sarna.
Now to analyze the forum thread we need to look at the context. The OP over there asked how Sarna and MWO relate, if the MWO-invented Roughneck 'Mech could be considered canonical, and generally why Sarna doesn't display the MWO art style more prominently.
BrokenMnemonic gave the OP a very good and comprehensive answer, and I wish the thread had ended at that point.
Then ColBosch chimed in with concerns about Fair Use. He's a respected and knowledgeable BT veteran, but in my experience he also often comes across as opinionated and confrontational in his postings.
...so the OP asks as a follow-up question if he'd be allowed to upload his MWO artwork collection if proper attribution is given. I think he somewhat missed the point there. It seems to be a common misconception that Sarna should somehow be, well, an image repository or art gallery but that's not what it is. It's a wiki, and as such takes an encyclopedic approach, not a promotional approach with many pretty images. (In my view at least. Policy:Images seems to agree with me, but then again I wrote that and so far it stands as community consensus simply because nobody disagreed.)
Adrian Gideon's (Ray Arrastia's) comment that nothing from PGI should be mixed with anything else there came somewhat out of left field, and honestly left me scratching my head. I just don't get what he's telling us here. I presume "there" refers to the Sarna site... but what's the problem with PGI?
I understood his comment to basically mean "Nope, PGI and their MWO game don't contribute canon and their imagery is irrelevant to BattleTech canon."
I did not, by contrast, understand him to mean "PGI is evil, we don't want to be associated with them" nor "You're in legal trouble from PGI" because neither of these interpretations seem to make any sense.
Ray Arrastia is the de-facto BT Line Developer these days (I just noticed he's now billed as Assistant Line Developer in his forum avatar sig line! When did that happen?) and quite the go-to person for BT, given that LD Randall Bills is notoriously difficult to get an answer from as he is wearing too many hats, in Bills' own words.
As such, ColBosch's comment suggesting to "listening to Ray" is spot on, but doesn't help at all in determining what he meant.
I tried to re-explain things, and ColBosch jumped at the Policy:Images and Fair Use that I had linked.
Wrangler took ColBosch to say Sarna was in potential legal trouble with the MWO imagery.
Which prompted me to point out our Policy:Notability which in turn made ColBosch talk about posting copyrighted information (presumably referring to MWO imagery) and how that's obviously a bad idea. His comment seems to be based on the assumption that Sarna has some sort of official permission from CGL which (obviously) wouldn't extend to any PGI material. However, I think that's besides the point vis-a-vis our Policies for Notability and Images. If such a permission from CGL exists I'm unawares of it. It's certainly nice to have, but I remain unconvinced that what Sarna does is legally problematic even after checking out the Fair Use youtube video that was posted. As someone wrote in the thread, still images in a wiki article about the game or 'Mech are not the same thing as somehow infringing on the 3d design in the context of a computer game.
Edited by Frabby (03/29/17 08:48 AM)
|
Wrangler
03/29/17 08:51 PM
108.20.178.107
|
Can we get Nic in here on the thread? We need start systematically REMOVING stuff from Sarna.
I don't have as much free time as I used to be, so for I'd think we need more help with this. If this is what were doing.
When it hits the fan, make sure your locked, loaded, and ready to go!
|
Frabby
03/30/17 03:43 AM
84.180.89.101
|
What exactly do you think has to be removed, and why? CGL could "suggest" removal of content that CGL owns the rights to; but we haven't heard from PGI.
I still think Adrian Gideon just wanted to point out that CGL is in no position to grant Sarna any direct or implicit sanction for other IP, such as IP owned by PGI.
But yeah... someone should look this over who is both a native speaker and at least somewhat familiar with the pertinent copyright laws. If only to form an opinion on whether Sarna is in any sort of legally gray area.
|
Nic Jansma
03/31/17 03:00 PM
68.48.94.39
|
I think Frabby has summarized everything appropriately -- I'll reach out to both CGL and PGI contacts to make sure there are no concerns.
In the meantime, I do not believe any action needs to be taken (nor do I think we will end up removing anything). But I'll double-check to make sure.
|
Wrangler
04/10/17 05:16 PM
64.74.106.164
|
Any further developments? Are these cool with PGI and CGL?
When it hits the fan, make sure your locked, loaded, and ready to go!
|
Nic Jansma
04/17/17 11:05 AM
68.48.94.39
|
The unofficial suggestion I got from CGL was to not mix PGI and CGL content. CGL has been, in general, (very) supportive of Sarna, and CGL doesn't want any any problems to rise for them or us from "mixed content".
I still need to reach out to PGI to see if they have any specific concerns.
|
Frabby
04/18/17 02:39 PM
84.180.89.101
|
Quote:
The unofficial suggestion I got from CGL was to not mix PGI and CGL content. [...] CGL doesn't want any any problems to rise for them or us from "mixed content".
Maybe I'm being dense here, or maybe there's something lost in translation... but what is "mixed content" and why would it be a problem? Or is CGL just suggesting here that we shouldn't treat PGI content as canonical - which some of it (the Hero 'Mech fluff) actually is, thanks to Randall Bills's ruling on the matter with LD hat on.
|
BrokenMnemonic
04/20/17 11:30 AM
82.109.66.144
|
I notice that an IP address has just added a chunk of US legal code to our page on copyrights, which seems worrying.
|
Nic Jansma
04/23/17 12:26 PM
68.48.94.39
|
@Frabby it's honestly a little unclear to me too. And I'm hesitant to push for more clarity, as often the more you ask for an "official" response, the more hard-lined it will be.
I think that CGL is suggesting that we shouldn't treat PGI content as canonical, *unless* there's official word from e.g. Randall on specific things.
|
Nic Jansma
04/23/17 12:28 PM
68.48.94.39
|
@BrokenMnemonic: Good catch, I rolled this back.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Policy:Copyrights&action=history
|
Frabby
04/23/17 04:37 PM
84.180.89.101
|
Thanks Nic. I know what you mean re: pushing for answers. Guess we should just let the matter rest now that it has settled down.
|
Wrangler
05/26/17 09:09 AM
131.239.31.200
|
I totally agree. (sorry for late response)
When it hits the fan, make sure your locked, loaded, and ready to go!
|