Probably been proposed before but...

Summary:

Coffee Table Book?

Probably been proposed before but...

Crythis 05 Sep 2012 07:56

Creating a tangent to the main list where articles could be duplicated, reformatted, and polished to high quality (with their writer's permission/supervision) all under license allowing them to be published in compilations in hardcover books (maybe some sort of bound folio) and sold (kickstarter anyone?). I know many people who'd pay top dollar for something as original and quirky as this to show off to their friends.

No idea what would happen to the profits, maybe shared by authors or fed into site somehow.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

eric_h 06 Sep 2012 15:14

There are two problems:

1. The actual legitimacy of someone doing this is a legal glue trap. No one really knows what would happen, and I don't think anyone has the money to pay the lawyers who could figure it out.

2. Making money from some derivative of the site will start the biggest brouhaha among the membership that you have ever seen. Who should benefit from the profits?

The site? (We need better hosting, and that costs money.)
The authors? (If your work is included, why shouldn't you get a share?)
Everyone who has contributed to the site? (Because the site, and its popularity/success, is a collective effort.)
Nobody? (Because nobody posted to the site with the intent of making a profit.)

I guarantee that whichever you choose, at least half the membership will be pissed about it.

---

SCP Wiki Senior Citizen Staff | Thank you for testing my new memetic Forum sig

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Crythis 06 Sep 2012 17:54

I imagine if the profits were fed into the site to improve hosting, remove ads, even a slush fund for future cool meta-activities, few people would complain as long as no one person profited from another's work, plus we'd credit all the original authors in the book, give them (well, those that desire it) recognition for their efforts.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Bland 15 Sep 2012 02:54

You can't just take someones work and print it. Each article has an author or sometimes more then one authors. THEY own the work they've done. Giving them credit isn't enough, you have to get written agreement.

If you wanted to make your OWN stories based on this stuff and sell it, that's legal because of our lisense (you can derive your own stuff and sell it) - and would still bring a down lightening from some of the Staff who hate the idea of selling this stuff.

Also, many of the works we have use images we don't have the rights to use. 173 isn't ours to use - it's owned by the artist. 682 is going to be copyrighted by a news organization (or photographer somewhere). MOST of them we'd have to redo the art.

Plus… there are a lot of hands out in the publishing world. Even self publishing an eBook would cost a bit (professional editing, cover art, etc.) - a few hundred. I've been reading up on it. (Note: Yes, we could do it for almost nothing. I would show.)

The idea HAS been floated before, and it's been tabled until there is something formal in place (probably an LLC) running the group.

I am neither senior staff nor a copyright lawyer.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Bunton 06 Sep 2012 12:30

I don't think that's feasibly possible. Changing the license on works would require getting the consent of all involved parties, which is more people than the author. It would require contacting the people who've contributed to the idea of the Foundation as used in the artice, which would involve contacting, among others, the original author of 173. Which would be incredibly difficult.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

firewoven 06 Sep 2012 12:38

There's no way to prove who authored it. I believe anonymous works are allowed into public domain. But I could be wrong.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Bunton 06 Sep 2012 12:40

Exactly. That's why it's incredibly difficult.

And I'm assuming here that it was functionally released under a CC license, which would make it his work, but free to distribute and derive from. His consent, however, would still be required to change the license.

He also isn't the only person who woul have to be contacted.

Last edited on 06 Sep 2012 12:41 by Bunton Show more

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

firewoven 06 Sep 2012 12:50

Written as a post on /x/ doesnt liscense it to my knowledge.

But the main issue, several pictures used in articles ARE copyrighted. Like 173s. We'd also need several members, some no longer active.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Crythis 06 Sep 2012 14:39

This is why I'd suggest rounding up people who are interested. Rewrite things a bit to polish 'em up, make sure all images are legally sourced, get consent from all parties, etc. We wouldn't be able to get every SCP on the site, but definitely enough to fill a book.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Bunton 06 Sep 2012 15:08

If we rewrite it, it's still a derivitave work, and all we've done is possibly add to the list of people responsible for it. They are still major contributors and their consent is still required. Publishing a book is not, to my knowledge, feasible.

And why would you, anyway? If I went and bought a book that I'd learned was publically and freely available on the internet, I would feel scammed.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

wishun 06 Sep 2012 16:14

The concept works (well and often) for many webcomics.
There is definitely a market for "dead tree" versions of freely available web content.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Crythis 06 Sep 2012 16:27

I was referring to getting the authors themselves to put up their work, not to just take it and rewrite it without their permission.

Also, like wishun says, there is a market for this stuff, just as long as it's clear that it is also available online. I know that I'd pay good money for one, especially if we polished up some articles and really put in some production value to the display.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Bland 15 Sep 2012 03:00

It's not derivative. It's a rewrite of the original and is still owned by the original author. Unless you meant complete rewrite based on the same concept, and that gets hairy to prove as being entirely subjective when you can't contact the original author.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Bland 15 Sep 2012 02:57

Writing it creates ownership. There was recently a bit of a dust up over something that was written and put on the FIRST site, so you can imagine publishing anything without a clearly owned author.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

RhettSarlin 06 Sep 2012 14:49

specifically, there's no practical way to change the license as a whole. but then, under the CC license we are under there's nothing that would PREVENT anyone from making such a book already anyway. so i don't see why there would be a need to change the license in the first place.

as for 173, that's a very interesting topic to me i've debated a lot lately….

IF everything on the site is a derivative work of scp-173, then we have one of two situations:

1. SCP-173 being released on this site caused it to be legally released under Creative Commons

2. Because SCP-173 was not released on this site by its original author, it was not legally released under Creative Commons

IF every single article on this site is to be legally considered a derivative of SCP-173, then…

Situation 1: no author on this site is able to change the license for ANY of the works they have published, because under the CC license you are REQUIRED to release your derivative under the exact same license.

or

Situation 2: every article on this site is in violation of copyright because they were unauthorized derivatives created from the original source without permission, and NOTHING released on this site is legally covered by Creative Commons because that was not authorized by the original copyright holder.

either one is…not exactly ideal.

the only way that works out ok for us is if somehow SCP-173 being released on 4chan put it into the public domain such that anyone was legally able to make a work based on it that they had full legal control over, rather than them being considered derivatives.

but until we have someone come along and tell us that's the way things are we get to operate as if Creative Commons is our god, because nobody has proven to us yet that it is not :P and under CC, you could make this book just fine as long as you followed the rules of CC.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Bunton 06 Sep 2012 15:09

copyright

Copyright isn't in effect here. I do not believe people have immediate legal rights to things they post on 4chan.

EDIT: Actually, if 173 was originally posted without a license attached, which is very probable, then Option 1 would be the case and the site would have ownership of it.

Last edited on 06 Sep 2012 15:14 by Bunton Show more

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

firewoven 06 Sep 2012 16:07

As I said above. Posted anonymously without feaseble means Of checking for ownership. So I don't know that any lisencing applies to it.

Last edited on 06 Sep 2012 16:09 by firewoven Show more

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

RhettSarlin 06 Sep 2012 16:22

4chan's policy, from what i understand, is that copyright is retained by the original creator of each work.

thus the person who posted it did expose themselves to all kinds of legal problems by doing so, but this does not mean they do not HAVE copyright. it just means it's nigh impossible for them to PROVE it.

the only reason any of this matters is it comes down to "who can sue who for what". and by posting it anonymously on 4chan, the original owner hamstrung themselves on their ability to sue anybody for anything.

however, it still DOES have legal ramifications insofar as that if it came to a court case, people could get a lawsuit thrown out by pointing out that the person suing them was not the original content owner, as their own work was a derivative of copywritten materials, regardless of whether or not they were able to identify who that owner was.

as for the "site" having ownership of it…we are not a legal entity yet. when it boils down to it all that the people running the site have control over is the website itself, and what content is seen on it, but we have no legal rights to grant or forbid anyone permission to do anything with that content. wikidot would technically have more 'rights' to everything here than the staff running the site, if you're going to try to claim that.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

wishun 06 Sep 2012 16:30

Doesn't "good faith effort" apply to all this?

Let's assume for the sake of arguement that the original author of 173 has a claim to everything here as derivative works. Finding him/her and verifying their identity as the original poster is, for all practical intents and purposes, impossible. Which puts the copyright in the same boat as intelectual properties where the rights holding entity is defunct, bankrupt, dead without heirs, etc. Wether such works are public domain or not is an open question. But it has been de facto established as a matter of practical application that derivates of such works are acceptable as long as the derivator can show they made a reasonable effort to get permission beforehand.

Personally, I'm coming to believe that their are no practical intelectual property rights for anything posted anonamously. Further, routine use of a certain account or site handle does not constitute proof that you were the person who posted a particular work using that account. Could anyone ever prove that I am the same person who was behind the keyboard then and now? No, therefor no one could ever defend their claim in court if it was challenged.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

RhettSarlin 06 Sep 2012 16:48

that's all fine, but that doesn't go against my point. the question here is basically whether or not the people who posted things on this site owned the copyright to their own materials, which they released to others under the CC license. if they cannot prove that they have legal right to have copyright over it, then while they may legally be able to make and distribute their materials, i cant see any court ruling in their favor if they tried to bring lawsuit against somebody else, as they didnt have the legal standing to release anything under any kind of license.

the flipside to that being, of course, that neither could the people who ripped them off sue anybody else. it's like the ramifications of CC, but worse. under CC you COULD sue if people didnt follow CC properly. but if you don't legally own anything you made then license is just thrown out the window and it's a big free for all. personally i'm hoping that's not the case.

regardless, there is no set of circumstances that i can see here that would somehow prevent such a book from being legal to both make and sell, it'd just be frustrating not to be able to stop anyone else from ripping you off the same way.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

wishun 06 Sep 2012 16:55

Ah, I see, I was reading your points from a different perspective and missed the implications.

Basically, SCPs have the same legal situation as "Snuggies".

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

RhettSarlin 06 Sep 2012 17:08

yep. another example: take just about any internet meme out there. who owns the copyright? who can prove that they do anyway? nobody usually. people make merchandise based on that stuff all the time, and can do so without fear. but those people cant sue anybody else who is doing the same thing even if their products are identical. so it becomes a perfect competition in economic terms. that's pretty much where we would be at if those are the case.

our best case scenario for the authors would be if making SCP articles was considered fair use instead of being considered derivatives of scp-173, because then people actually could license their own works, and have legal standing to be able to come against anyone who made derivatives without following CC properly, AND could legally remove their work from the site and release it under a different license if they wished. but following CC properly still grants people carte blanche otherwise, so even then the book wouldnt be forbidden :P.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Crythis 06 Sep 2012 17:58

I wonder if one of the members here is, or knows, a copyright lawyer that could settle this definitively.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

SystemDel 15 Sep 2012 02:11

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument here, but what if we just got a bunch of authors, like, real actual, active authors who have expressed interest in this idea, get all their permissions and stuff, and then just write a bunch of completely new SCPs? That way we know who did what, we have permission. There are probably a lot of holes with this, and it would take a REALLY long time to gather enough people to write enough NEW SCPs to fill an entire book, but it might be feasible, no?

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Bland 15 Sep 2012 03:22

another example: take just about any internet meme out there. who owns the copyright?

I can only name two that could possibly, because the person in the image and that one who took the base picture are know. But yea - somethings are practically impossible to prove. That still doesn't mean that's the way the law/courts would come down. But then, I'm not a lawyer so gods know.

Our legal status will be vastly entertaining to those of us NOT on staff!

Last edited on 15 Sep 2012 03:24 by Bland Show more

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

RhettSarlin 15 Sep 2012 03:46

who says it's not entertaining to the people on staff too? :P it interests the HELL out of me, delving in to figure out how it all works. what gets me the most is how easy it is for people to get a misunderstanding of it and make this or that assumption.

take a movie for example…

you've got the side that assumes that nobody could make a movie without our explicit permission(one of the most common i see)

you've got the side that assumes that there's no way a movie could ever legally be made at all(which i run across on the forums)

you've got the side that assumes that they can just make a movie without having to worry about doing anything(we've got at least two groups i've seen that seem to think this way)

you've got the side that assumes that it could be made but could not be sold commercially(another of the most common)

you've got the side that assumes that any profits that were made would legally be the property of the website(to gears specifically, ran across this viewpoint just today!)

and every single one of those viewpoints is wrong(some more than others).

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Bland 15 Sep 2012 04:19

Yea, I read the recent Mr. Movie's stuff. I think it was Moose I sent some info about him (He's a stupid kid - I damn near tried to call his parents).

Technically as long as he uses the CC notice and doesn't directly use other authors stuff (other then "fair use" and THAT'S slippery) he CAN do it and sell it and keep the money.

Of course, we can make a prequel book and a sequel radio show just as legally. Then make our own movie derived from his that completely invalidates his.

Painful thing is that because this is a Wiki, this is the best license. Even as a cooperative project it's the best.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

RhettSarlin 15 Sep 2012 04:50

yep. and the only problem to it all really is that we used the wikidot default from the beginning, when we would have wanted the non-commercial variant, which would have made it so that people DID have to obtain permission from the original content creators in order to make commercial works. but we didnt do that, and we cant just change it now, as the staff running the website doesnt have ownership of the majority of the content and we cant choose to re-license something we dont own.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Bland 15 Sep 2012 05:14

True. IF we knew all the owners, it MIGHT be possible to do something - as long as we're willing to consider 173 public anonymous work.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

RhettSarlin 15 Sep 2012 05:23

which is the point that it always boils down to: if all articles are considered derivatives of 173, if 173 became public property at some point somehow, and if it was legal for derivatives of 173 to be licensed by someone other than the original author. but! i've gone over all THAT one entirely too many times now.

Re: Probably been proposed before but...

Jekeled 15 Sep 2012 05:38

Man, somebody needs to talk to a copyright lawyer to get some of these questions sorted out…I know most people can't afford to do that, but somebody needs to do it soon, because these conversations are spiraling into an "well, if" argument that we'll never escape.