Forum:Amazon.com

I'm here representing the Sonic Fanon Wiki, and we've discovered some shocking information. An unknown person has been taking entire categories from our wiki and put them up for sale as books on Amazon.com. Many of us are outraged by this, and we've decided that the best course of action would be to first gain wikia's support in the matter. If anyone could provide further assistance, it would be greatly appreciated.


 * This is perfectly legal. There is nothing you can do.--
 * Maybe it's legal in regards to fanon content, but these "books" include canon information as well, all of which is under copyright by the respective owners. It's not just Sonic Fanon Wiki, either. This has apparantly happened to several wikis, which means there's likely to be much copyrighted information in these books. My function is not my purpose.   My purpose is to complete my function.   ~Xi  03:38, December 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, perfectly legal. They attribute all their information and therefore meet the criteria for cc-by-sa. Nothing

you can do about it.--
 * Sonic is part of it, and he is owned by Sega. Sonic himself. Now what do you think? Crystal the Raccoon  "The controller of ice!"  03:49, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but most, if not all, of my characters have a copyright on them in the form of a watermark of sorts. You can see right on this one that it's copyrighted by ME. --Ryushu the Cat

I call bullcrap. Sonic is owned and copyrighted by SEGA, and many of these characters are likewise copyrighted. Copyright law prevents people from using and making products based on copyrighted material without explicit, legal, and contractual permission. Otherwise, Pokemon could use Sonic just by admitting that Sonic is owned by SEGA, even if SEGA did not give Nintendo any sort of permission.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round


 * You do not own anything you put on Wikia. It is all licensed under CC-BY-SA. This means that so long as it is attributed, it is free to copy. Your images are not copyrighted unless you went to a copyright office and applied for copyright status and were legally granted the rights to them. Sonic is a copyright of Sega. The content your write on your wiki is not. The content you write is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Books LLC has fulfilled the requirements of using your content by attributing it to you.--

Exactly HOW is this legal? Please explain. From my understanding, you should not be allowed to sell something that is copyrighted by someone else without their consent. And the people who own the content are not getting any profit out of this. I'm sure that many people are completely unaware that all of this is going on behind their backs. How is this legal, if it outrightly goes against the copyright laws? ~Smash The Echidna~ http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100421224452/sonicfanon/images/0/04/Smash_life.png 03:55, December 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Your work is not copyrighted. Books LLC is not using any copyrighted material. Only free license material is being used. No copyright is being violated.--
 * See this. -- Kangaroopowah  - Talk  04:01, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

-

Well then I'm gonna find a way to take all my characters and give them proper copyrights, like maybe by putting them on a real website. THEN THEY CAN'T BE STOLEN.--Ryushu the Cat

Regardless, Sonic, Cream, Shadow, and other legally copyrighted characters are in this book. That much should be illegal.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 04:03, December 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you this then. If they are not allowed to use it, how come you can?--
 * Maybe because they're selling this stuff and we aren't? ~Smash The Echidna~ http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100421224452/sonicfanon/images/0/04/Smash_life.png 04:09, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

We openly admit that we don't own any canon Sonic characters, and we do NOT make a profit off of it. This person is (at least attempting to) making a profit off of SEGA's copyrighted material. That's the difference.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 04:10, December 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * You are making a profit off of it. Wikia makes a profit off of people viewing the ads that they place on your site. Therefore, you would be in violation of copyright law if they were.--

No we aren't. In the three years I've been on Wikia, I have not made a single cent off of any of SEGA's material, or my own.--Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 04:14, December 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * You aren't the one who would be making the money. Wikia is. Wikia is a for profit company. These Staff members that you talk to are actual paid employees. Who work a 9-5 job at Wikia. They profit off of your work. If you have a canon character on your wiki, according to you, you are violating copyright law since a profit is being made off of that work.--

....What? How in god-damned Hell does that make sense?--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 04:18, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * The same way newspapers can have articles about Sonic. -- Kangaroopowah  - Talk  04:19, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Before you guys at the SFW do anything drastic, you should know that this issue was discussed weeks ago. A lot of big wikis (really big ones) know about it, none of them are happy, but the matter's been looked into by many Wikians with the same concerns as you and there's nothing, legally, that can be done. I direct you here. .Seshat. 05:51, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * To add to this discussion, i have looked at the page where Ryushu the Cat has referred to. I see none of the 6 pictures containing the correct attribution in form of a Fair Use license, free license or any source clarification (use in case of the fair use license, nice improved template versions found here and here). Therefor you are not abiding Wikia's Terms of Use. With the CC-BY-SA license it is clearly stated that anyone who is specifically attributing the source correctly is granted rights to sell copies of the content. I do not understand anyone willing to buy these, since the updated versions are free to read, but it is fully legal and cannot be prevented due to the license.


 * I would hesitate to take Godisme's black-and-white, cut-and-dry position on this. It is conceivable that, should these printed books contain material that should have been licensed only under fair use, and not CC-BY-SA, on Wikia (a mistake on the part of the uploader), a case could be made by the original copyright holder against Books LLC (and/or it's subsidiaries). In that case, you're still boned. The text you write is all CC-BY-SA because of the ToS on Wikia, and it's pretty airtight, so Wikia can't take blame for what users upload. This means the fault lies with the uploader for not presenting the correct licensing information (fair use vs. CC-BY-SA).


 * The original copyright holder's rights are what take precedence, and not any mis-licensing that might've happened in the interim by mistakes made by Wikia users. Just because it's uploaded to Wikia, doesn't mean the content gets a CC-BY-SA license, as first Wikia needs the rights to issue such a license. If it's copyrighted material being used under the terms of fair use, then no-one can claim it to have a CC-BY-SA license.


 * In any case though, the wiki's community of writers is pretty much out of luck. The original copyright holders are the only ones who can take any legal action, and Books LLC is wary of this (they put links to images in the books, not actual images).


 * As for fair use, I'm starting to doubt if anything on Wikia can be used under US Copyright Law as "fair use", since Wikia is a for-profit organization, and fair use specifically precludes using the copyrighted material to make any monetary gain from it. I find this somewhat comical, as it would constitute a huge problem for Wikia. (They have a legal firm working for them that's sorted this out though, I'm sure. Probably by simply passing the buck to the users via the ToS.) If users can't upload content here under fair use, then how could most of the wiki's here be anything more than walls-of-text? --Crimsonphoenixca 15:13, December 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * You can trust my black and white cut and dry position on this because I researched Books LLC when we found out about this months ago. They are perfectly protected. The fulfill all the clauses of using cc-by-sa material. They know what they are doing and hence there is no legal recourse that can be taken.--
 * Per Godisme, Books LLC makes adhering to copyright law their top priority. This is why, if you were to order one of their books, you would notice that there are no images in it, only links to images. By definition, anything you put on Wikia must be free content, because it must fall under the CC-BY-SA license. Doing otherwise would be a copyright violation that you are liable for, not Books LLC; although in reality they could still face legal action because of it. If we assume that everything on your wiki adheres to the proper licensing policies, then we can safely conclude that Books LLC is well within their legal rights. At the time this was discovered, staff ordered one of the books; if it hadn't met CC-BY-SA, they would have sued already and the books would have been removed from Amazon to prevent further damage to Books LLC or Amazon itself. There is nothing you can do. Rest assured, the vast majority of people wouldn't pay the price they're asking for to get fanon, so Books LLC isn't likely to make a substantial amount of money off of your wiki.


 * Indeed, Godisme, in this case, Books LLC is protected. I did go into that. I'm just saying it's important to be very clear that what Books LLC is doing is legal in this specific case. As I explained in the second sentence of my post, it is entirely conceivable that, given a different set of circumstances, a similar case may indeed be a case of copyright infringement.
 * I did acknowledge that Books LLC is covered and why, Monchoman45, in the third paragraph of my post. (Makes me wonder if you read it, since you're explaining a point to me that I already covered.) Also, CC-BY-SA does not equate to "free". It has restrictions. You are wrong about where fault lies in a case where Books LLC did commit copyright infringement by copying something from Wikia. As I explained, just because it is on Wikia, doesn't mean it actually has a CC-BY-SA license. If someone uploads copyrighted material here, and then some other party copies said material and makes money off it, both parties are at fault. The latter cannot claim "but they said it was CC-BY-SA", because the onus is still on the one using the material to ensure that they are not in violation of the copyright laws in their jurisdiction by using said material.
 * As for me and the wiki I'm working on, I already don't care about this. It's a "duh" matter to me, but it's important to be clear that there are potential similar cases that would indeed pose a problem. Also important to note (and I already said this, but I'll say it again) that the Wikia users are still boned, and it's the original copyright holders who can actually do anything. (Though if the copy weren't verbatim, then it could be considered derivative, and would have to be distributed under CC-BY-SA as well.)
 * When dealing with legal matters, one must always take a critical eye and analyse on a case-by-case basis. This is why courts issue warrants on a case-by-case basis, and don't allow legislation that say, would issue a "no-knock" warrant for anything involving drugs. Just because Books LLC hasn't done something wrong yet, doesn't mean there is no chance of it happening in future, or that some other, similar company or group may spring up and not be as prudent when it comes to copyright.
 * In short, saying that "it's perfectly legal" when you're talking about a new case, isn't helpful. Saying "it's likely legal, and it's highly unlikely that you, dear user, can do anything about it" and asking "What are the particular circumstances of this new case? Are they the same as the previous ones involving Books LLC?" is helpful.
 * I'm still curious to know what you found regarding fair use on Wikia. It seems that any research you did on this matter, Godisme, would logically lead to the question of whether or not Wikia users may upload material under fair use. --Cphoenix (talk) 12:52, December 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * ( Well, I'm sorry about this, but nobody on Wikia can copyright anything unless you want to get a copyright for a new website with the US Patents/Copyright offices. -- <font color="white" size="4">.. <span style="color:blue; border-bottom:1px dotted; font-family:Malgun Gothic; cursor:help;" title="Hello!! I was probably helping at the forums, or I was just translating st00f!">Jeff   (Talk!)   (Contribs!)   (Email!)   (Blog!) <font color="white" size="3">.. 01:34, December 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm. Copyright is automatic these days, you don't have to file stuff with the Library of Congress any longer, haven't had to for years. That's the whole reason the CC-BY-SA and related licenses were created. You have to specifically exempt your work from copyright, and say how it is exempted.


 * What that means to all of us with Wikia wikis? By making use of Wikia's hosting services, we agree to their policies, including the CC-BY-SA licensing. We use Wikia, we agree to forego standard copyright. Didn't realize that? Tough. Somewhere along the process of setting up the wiki your wiki founder checked "Yes" and agreed to it. Same as we all do with software licensing. Someone with authority to speak for the wiki said they'd read and agreed with the policies, including the licensing and copyright. This time it came back to bite us. Wikia does this so they don't have to tightly police the various wikis in regard to content; we've all stated that everything we post is either fair use or otherwise clear of copyright, and can be repackaged so long as proper attributions have been made. Apparently Books LLC is very canny, and doesn't include graphics, just links to the images, as that is an area where individually listed permissions reserve copyright to the respective artists; at least that's what we do on the Whateley Academy Wiki.


 * So, we're screwed in regard to doing anything about Books LLC and Wikia harvesting. Because they are doing it in accord with policies we stated we had read and agreed with. JohnBobMead 03:48, December 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Jeff: Patent != Copyright. --Cphoenix (talk) 13:47, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

When doing fanon stuff like your "original characters please don't steal they're copyrighted", the best thing to do now imo is to use another Wiki host or another Website. Nothing is going to stop Books LLC. Mckrongs 15:05, December 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sonic is copyrighted by Sega, yes. However, if you are able to put Sonic related content on your wiki, Books LLC is able to publish it. We can run this backwards as well: if we assume that Books LLC cannot legally publish the Sonic content on your wiki, then you are not allowed to have it on the wiki in the first place. Either way, you lose. Unfortunately, Wikia does not offer any other licensing options except in cases of extenuating circumstances (Memory Alpha, for example, was acquired by Wikia, and is under CC-BY-NC-SA, which makes them immune to Books, LLC). Your only option is to use a different host to prevent any more of your content from being published. What has already been published, however, will remain freely accessible by Books, LLC.


 * Which just leads back to my last point. If we can't actually use anything under fair use here because Wikia is for-profit, then how can almost any wiki here actually be more than a wall-of-text? In reality, this is something of a moot point, since any content creators would be fools to go after Wikia and it's users for using screenshots of movies, or games, or icons from movies or games, etc. to illustrate their wikis properly. (Talk about corporate suicide, though there are companies out there that will hand-out C&D's like mad, despite common-sense.) Seems to me that technically, because Wikia is for-profit, we user's can't rely on fair use, and Wikia's covered itself with the ToS by passing any legal obligations on that point to the users who upload the content.


 * There seems to be one heck of a disconnect here between reality and common-sense, and the technicalities of the law. Game developers, broadcasters, and other content producers won't chase after Wikia users (if they have brains) because these users are their customers, and they're providing free publicity to boot. However, technically speaking, they most certainly could, since, technically speaking, nothing uploaded here could fall under fair use. (Technically speaking. This thing that I'm going in circles over could only be solved definitively by the judicial system.) Ah bugger, this is probably going to end with another one of my long research runs of US case law. And I'm a Canadian, for goodness' sake. (Dang it godisme, get back here and tell me what you found in your research. You must've been over this already! lol )


 * My inclination is that most cases of Wikia users uploading copyrighted material would most likely be covered under 17 U.S.C. &#167; 107 (4) (despite Wikia itself being for-profit) which pertains to the effect the use has on the potential market value of the original work. It'd be hard to argue that something like say, The Vault had a detrimental affect on the Fallout series' market value. If anything, it increases it. (Sadly, fair use law here in Canada is not as well off. Our government right now is trying to criminalize any sort of circumvention of any "digital lock", meaning anyone say, opening-up a game in order to copy its icons, could be subject to criminal charges, even if the purpose was for criticism and comment. Hell, even screenshots of DVD movies might fall under this if it passes.) --Cphoenix (talk) 16:05, December 7, 2011 (UTC)