Forum:Stealing my pages...

I'm the admin of the Rune Factory wiki. There was already a Rune Factory Wiki when I started, so its naturally way above me in Google. Well, I've recently I've had a lot of info from Rune Factory four, and they've been copying dirrectly from my pages. Like here:

This is their version

This is mine (And mine was from before theres)

Its making me really frustrated, since I havent had nearly as much contributors as them, and I had to get all my infromation on my own... :( Is there anything I can do? Mai Is Me 00:23, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * The only thing you can do is request that they abide by the CC-BY-SA copyright rules (you can read more by clicking the CC-BY-SA link in the bottom right of every page) that Wikia abides by. CC-BY-SA 3.0 states that any information taken must be attributed to the original source. If they got the information from your site, they have to link back to it. If they refuse, then you'd have to involve staff.


 * This information is typically correct from Wikia -> offsite wiki. I am not sure how staff will deal with the situation if both wikis are hosted by Wikia. Technically, it should be dealt with the same as above. Rappy 00:27, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * On a side note, why are you making a separate wiki if there is already one about the topic? The community of Rune Factory fans would benefit most if the two wikis were merged. --Gardimuer { ʈalk } 00:36, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not "making" it right now, I've had it for almost a year now. Besides, that isn't the point... --Mai Is Me 00:45, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just merge the wikis together into the wiki that has more pages.I just think that's the fair way. AK777 00:58, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh, how would that be fair? I didn't do anything but add information to my wiki. The problem isn't with my choices. :P Mai Is Me 01:03, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding of a wiki's content is that any and all text is copyright of the author. Wikia can only host it by attributing ownership of that text which they do through page histories. Anyone who makes a change to an article can be identified through said history. Someone copying content over is breaking this copyright assuming they have not included a link back to the original page and attributed ownership of said material to the respective authors. In essence, the offending wiki (I haven't actually looked to see if they have bothered with attribution) is violating the law wikis are subject to.


 * If the content is not attributed back to you, you can either remove the content yourself, or, and this is much easier/better/likely to avoid edit wars, contact staff to have them take it down. I'm going to ignore the point about conflict of topic here. 01:17, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing the content is not the best action. Dialogue first would be. Removing it would just lead to edit wars then after no one would want to listen to reason. Rappy 01:21, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, would this (The bottom one) be a good reply? I don't really want to fight with him, since it's its not his fault... Mai Is Me 01:52, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also link CC-BY-SA to http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia:Licensing so they can read the license themselves. Rappy 01:54, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * How long should I wait for him to reply before I contact staff? Mai Is Me 16:04, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd give it at least a week or two (depending on whether or not he's actively editing) to make sure he sees the message. Rappy 16:20, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * If he edits, say today, but then just ignores it should I contact wikia? Mai Is Me 17:51, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * You should clarify that the wiki is perfectly within their rights to use their content, as long as they attribute it to your wiki. Once you've done that, wait for a reply (I'd also send a message to the user who's copying the content) - if after they've edited for a bit they havn't edited, feel free to contact staff --  Random Time  19:25, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Cåm's interpretation of the license is almost correct, but worth expanding. When you edit on Wikia, you licence the content under the Creative Commons BY-SA license. That gives anyone (not just Wikia) the permission to host the content if, and only if they attribute it to the original author. It also gives anyone permission to edit the work - as long as their edits are licensed under the original license (ergo, they attribute the original work to the original creator). This is normally done automatically in the history, or (if the content is copied from another wiki) - by a link in the edit summary and/or a template on that page saying where it was originally from. If they do not attribute (it is normally polite to ask first) - then you may remove - which, if it comes to this you should try contacting staff in the first instance, but you do have the legal defense of a DMCA letter (which you can adapt from Wikipedia's standard violation letter, if it gets that far - I doubt it will). --  Random Time  19:37, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Touching on a few points... Technically, attribution only in the edit summary shouldn't be sufficient... as the text isn't attributed on the page it's on but rather a page rarely visited (the page history). Second, Wikia uses CC-BY-SA 3.0, not the 2.0 that RT linked above. Details on CC-BY-SA 3.0 can be found here (I am not sure how much has changed from 2.0 to 3.0 though). Rappy 19:47, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what I get for copying the first link I google, I doubt much has changed - but yes. Regarding the attribution, the license states that "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner;" - for myself, I'd be happy with a history attribution, but I can understand that most people would be happier with a link back to the original page. --  Random Time  20:00, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * My interpretation is that the attribution should be visible and not obscured on a history page... but I may be reading into it incorrectly. You can (I have previously) contact people at CC-BY-SA and find out if that is the case as it pertains to Wikia. Rappy 20:07, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL. The photo is even the same file name. I would get so angry if that happened to me, someone stealing my pages. Jess     This is what dreams are made of  20:40, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd strongly disagree with Rappy's interpretation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0. Internal Wikia rules have long held that edit summary attribution is perfectly acceptable:
 * "Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as copying within Wikia), it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page history, when importing the text."
 * Wikia's rules, naturally, are just a rewording of the license's rules. There, in section 4c, we find:
 * "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors."
 * In other words, if edit histories are good enough for subsequent adapters of the work, they're good enough for attribution of the original import. The whole business of the visible template pointing back to the article on wikipedia, or wherever you obtained it, is not actually necessary.


 * As to the broader point of the thread, I would strongly urge Mai is me to reconsider merging "his/her" — and I put the words in quote causes possession is awfully difficult to prove in a wiki environment — project with the one that has so offended him/her. Yes, you've very technically been wronged, but at the end of the day, all our sites end with "wikia.com".  What you're doing is essentially the same as fighting over the boundary line between two unincorporated towns.  Be realistic.  There is no legal distinction between your two wikis, unless someone takes it to a court of law.  Even then, I doubt very strongly if Wikia is going let their network of communities set up strong boundaries.  Realistically, it's all Wikia.


 * As was said upthread, it is better in the long run that you simply join forces with "the other side", rather than engaging in a time-wasting effort to somehow define a difference with "the other guys". The goal should be to increase coverage of your subject matter, as rapidly and efficiently as possible. This can be best accomplished if you join forces and work together.


 * The other thing is that anyone could retrofit attribution onto the articles that have been "stolen", and you'd have no leg to stand on. It doesn't require the user who copied "your" work.  If I wanted to end this dispute right this second, all I'd have to do is log into "the other site" and start adding some attribution.


 * It's not like you'll ever be able to stop them from taking "your" stuff or retaining it or doing whatever they want to with it. You're basically fighting for a single line of attribution in a page history that ultimately will become buried so deep no one will care.   I'm honestly not sure why that's better than simply joining the other wiki and becoming such a dominant editor that everyone knows your name and your contributions to the community.


 * Being one of the prominent editors of a big wiki is a heck of a lot more rewarding than being the bureaucrat of a tiny offshoot. 21:06: Mon 21 May 2012


 * "'The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors.'"


 * That is the kicker. Wikia's quote from above... "'Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as copying within Wikia), it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page history, when importing the text.'" is referring to the importation of a page from one wiki to another (in which, the history is typically intact) and therefore the authors are listed in the history. This is not the same case as copying/pasting content from one place to another.


 * WoWWiki and Wowpedia have dealt with Creative Commons on this subject in the past and the bottom line is, any page that has text that was taken from another source has to have attribution on that page (either by supplying the URL of the original and/or a URL for the history page to attribute the collective authors of the original work). Simply burying the attribution in a copy/paste in the edit summary does not attribute according to the license. I also have personal e-mails from Creative Commons stating this to be true. On top of that, the e-mail also states "'In order for this person to copy the text they are required to attribute you, and perhaps even release their own work under the same Share Alike license, if their use is considered a derivative of the original.'" which is not an issue when dealing with a Wikia -> Wikia copy. Rappy 22:01, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I realize that people might think that I should just join the two wikis together and that it would technically solve this problem, but I'm not interested in doing that at all, so there isn't really a point in suggesting it. Anyway... But they can just say that its from my wiki, and then keep it on their's? That seems kind of unfair... Like I get it, but if a person comes onto their wiki and sees that I originally wrote it they probably won't care. Especially since they made it exactly the same as mine, so by going to mine they wouldn't be getting any bonuses. So what would be the point in having a link? Like, its not even Slightly close its identical. --Mai Is Me 23:53, May 21, 2012 (UTC) [edit conflict]
 * That's exactly my point. You're upset over something which, even if resolved in your favor, will offer little in the way of visible evidence of victory.  I mean, I understand why you're upset. But the very most you can hope for here is that Wikia takes down the content and tells them to replace it the "correct" way.  Chances are, however, that the best you're going to get is an obscure attribution line.


 * Be mad about it all you want, but your work is still going to get onto their wiki; it's still going to be an exact copy; and you're still going to have very little at your wiki that they can't have at theirs. That's why I'm advocating you simply join them.  With or without you, they're still going to be able to get "your" content.  You may not be interested in joining them, but it's the only realistic shot you have at being able to shape and guide your contributions about this topic at Wikia.   00:22: Tue 22 May 2012

[/edit conflict]
 * If it was me editing on the offending wiki I'd go out of my way to rewrite it to avoid an eyesore of an attribution. You can cover the same information without c/ping it. You can even use the same sources if you want. But that's just me :| 00:30, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the essential point to take from our arguing about the nuances of the licensing is that the original work needs to be cited in the same way I might cite a book or video source for an article. I know on my home wiki there are various Wikipedia articles regarding policies or guidelines such as w:c:runescape:RS:H. The box at the bottom of the article (although in my recollection it normally goes at the top) is sufficient attribution and I would expect something similar if someone tried to c/p a page of a wiki elsewhere.


 * And correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the original work need to be preserved? I don't know if merging a wiki would delete the page history to a point where it couldn't be cited. You could use resources like Webcite, but I don't know how well that would work for a page history. 00:10, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm marking this thread because I think we do need some staff guidance at this point.  We need some clarity on:
 * The issue of whether giving an edit summary link back to a source is sufficient. I certainly think the text of the license itself and the Wikia rules seem to support that view.  Others do not.  So what's the staff opinion of the text at Community Central:Licensing?
 * Whether the rules different for a wikia-->wikia cut-n-paste than they are for a wikipedia-->wikia, or a general CC-BY-SA 3.0 site-->wikia move?
 * If you move a page entirely from one wiki to another, such that it no longer exists at its original location, does that relieve the "accepting" wiki of the need to attribute?
 * Any guidance from staff would at this point be very helpful to our conversation. 00:35: Tue 22 May 2012


 * I'm not staff, but I've been familiar with CC-BY-SA for several years before I started using Wikia, and some of these questions have clear-cut answers:
 * When copying content, if you do not comply with the license the source is under, then you are committing copyright infringement.
 * "The issue of whether giving an edit summary link back to a source is sufficient."
 * Licensing says: "If you import text under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s). Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as copying within Wikia), it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page history, when importing the text."
 * "Whether the rules different for a wikia-->wikia cut-n-paste [...]"
 * That is directly addressed in the above quote "(such as copying within Wikia)".
 * Additionally, Licensing gives clear guidelines for both copying Wikia, and for copying content to Wikia.
 * If you copy Wikia content, you must comply with the license.
 * If you copy content to Wikia, you must comply with the license of the source.
 * Therefore, if you copy Wikia content within Wikia, if you do not comply with the license, then you are breaking the Wikia TOU twice with one action.
 * "[...] does [the source no longer existing] relieve the "accepting" wiki of the need to attribute?"
 * Copying something which is later erased is still copying, and still requires attribution. The source being erased does not magically make the copy "not copied".
 * I hope this helps. --user452 01:36, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Czechout (Sorry if I spelled your name wrong) but what do you mean when you say "Visible Eveidence of my victory"? If you mean it in a sense if "I won you lost" I honestly don't care. The only thing I really want it for it to be erased (Which I'd prefer) or visibly linked to my page. What your saying about "the best that you can do" is all I even really want to happen. And again I'm not interested in merging them. I understand where your coming from, but thats now why I asked for help. And besides, the admin of that wiki hasn't even been on yet. We don't know if he'll just erase it when he gets back. I pretty much just wanted to know if I could just erase the page myself, but was advised not to. Since it would just result in editing wars. --Mai Is Me 01:04, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the main reason for persuing it."'If it was me editing on the offending wiki I'd go out of my way to rewrite it to avoid an eyesore of an attribution. You can cover the same information without c/ping it.'" Most users are not willing to admit they got the info from somewhere else when confronted about the licensing and will do what it takes to either rewrite it or scrap it in favor of something else. It's not so much as a win/lose situation. It's more of someone capitalizing on your hard work for nothing. Rappy 01:38, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, @user above. The bolded section is in reference to importing text, in which (by default export), the page history and authors are imported. As such, a simple summary attribution is sufficient. This is not the same as editing a page, copying the text, and pasting said text on another site without any attribution at all. In that manner, there should be a link on the page itself specifying where the information came from so users can go there and view the history of the page to see the authors that created it (which gives proper attribution). Rappy 01:38, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the words "(such as copying within Wikia)" are pretty clear, but I can explain it another way if you'd like.
 * There are two issues, the issue of complying with "copying from wikia", and complying with "copying to wikia"(AKA importing)
 * To limit confusion, it's helpful to imagine that it's a Wikia to otherCCwiki copy.
 * This "otherCCwiki" has exactly the same licensing terms, and the user wants to "import text under a compatible license which requires attribution" and "must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s). Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as [...] Wikia), it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary" of otherCCsite "'', which is recorded in the page history, when importing the text."
 * You can also flip the scenario, if you're copying a page from otherCCwiki to Wikia, it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page history.
 * I just want to clarify that I agree in principle that copiers should be required to link on the copied page itself, but that's not what Licensing says.
 * And while the CC-BY-SA license states: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", Wikia is the licensor, and Licensing says "As an author, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions", so we've already agreed to what it says on Licensing. --user452 01:59, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I've long tried to keep page histories intact when pages are split, or when an inexperienced user performs a copy/paste move. I was doing this just because I like record keeping, but according to the license, the page histories must be kept intact, and simply splitting a page without linking to the page history of the source page breaks the license.  Similarly, splitting a page in two by copying the content to 2 new pages, and then deleting the original page erases the original page history and therefore breaks the license.  --user452  02:06, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon thinking about it some more, I've realised something important: If linking to the source in the edit summary so that it is recorded in the page history is not sufficient, then every page on Wikia is breaking the terms of CC-BY-SA.
 * How? My edit is a derivative work, based on a previous work at the same url.  The original work my derivative work is based on is licensed under CC-BY-SA.  In order for my derivative work to comply with CC-BY-SA, I must cite the license (done, in the bottom right corner of the page) and give attribution to previous authors... uh oh.  The only place that the previous authors are given attribution is the page history.  So I hope that listing source in the page history is sufficient, otherwise I'm personally responsible for thousands of counts of copyright infringement. --user452  02:21, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * (This was already said earlier on this page, "In other words, if edit histories are good enough for subsequent adapters of the work, they're good enough for attribution of the original import") --user452 02:23, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not true. This is in reference to copy/pasting existing information to one or multiple places. If you read the license, you still own individual copyrights (if any) on the original work. It is still your work. If you copy it to multiple places, that does not break any rules. It is others taking your work and distributing it as if it was theirs. Rappy 02:27, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can copy my own work to multiple pages. If I copy my derivative work to another location, it is still a derivative work and must comply with the license and provide attribution.
 * When someone edits an article I have edited, then they are "taking [my] work and distributing it as if it was theirs", unless they attribute me, since this attribution only occurs in the page history, the only way in which they are not "taking [my] work and distributing it as if it was theirs" is if the automatic attribution in the page history is sufficient to comply with CC-BY-SA.
 * "If you read the license". The license is rather long so it's hard to tell exactly what you're referring to.  If anything I have said conflicts with anything specific in the license, please cite or paste the section. --user452  02:40, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

This is way too long... Wouldn't it be easier if the pages were just deleted until the admin started editing again? So we could start dealing with it when he came back to discuss it? --Mai Is Me 02:03, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to deal with this is for you to go to the wiki which is copying you, and add attribution yourself. Whenever I find that another user has copied my work, that's what I do.  I just leave a note stating the license and link to the source, and I leave the user a message directing them to the license, telling them I've made updates to comply with the license, and asking them to comply with the license in future.  I know it's extra work that you shouldn't have to do, but it's the simplest solution.  Now, if someone else removes the attribution later, that's a different matter entirely. --user452  02:11, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Kay ^_^ I added a link to my pages, its quite an eyesore though. Anyway, I noticed on this other page that they stole that they just took off the link. Its not identical, but they clearly just slightly rearranged it from mine. Can I do the same thing to that page? --Mai Is Me 02:29, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that certainly is an eyesore. Creating a header like will probably be regarded as spam/vandalism.  A footnote would be far better. --user452  02:42, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Something as simple as this would suffice. Rappy 03:46, May 22, 2012 (UTC)