Wikipedia "stealing" AF.net info

So I was looking at my site stats, and saw some hits had come from the Wikipedia entry on Shaman It was then that I noticed that the entire entry was "courtesy of AlphaFlight.Net" This is all fine and good, and I'm glad that they linked it back to me, as I do get a good bit of traffic from links on Wikipedia, however it does kind of annoy me that they didn't so much as ask me to use the material. I would have been happy to share, had they asked, and would have offered them more, but now I'm kinda ticked off.

Ben

Yeah they should have asked.

However doesn't that site actually rely on reader submissions in order to receive its information? So someone would have had to submit that to them and then say it was courtesy of you.


(btw Wikipedia is how I found this site)

yes indeed, that's how it works, and like I said, I don't mind it being used, it's just a pet peeve when that happens without being asked. That kind of thing has happened for years and I needed to rant about it last night after getting home from a party :)

Ben

Isn't there a "submitted by" spot on that site? I don't visit it too often but that would seem to be something they would need.

I agree though it would be only proper for you to receive credit for the work.

Interesting :-k over at yahoo.com they have this article about wikipedia...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051205/...ikipedia_rules

MM

a real kicker though is the text at the bottom of each page:

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

meaning they are saying anyone is able to turn around and take the text. So they take my work without asking, (but do provide a link) and then give it away to anyone else who may want it. I'm all for spreading the AF word, but with all the hours of work put in on this site, I take this principle to heart.

Ben

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

a real kicker though is the text at the bottom of each page:

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

meaning they are saying anyone is able to turn around and take the text. So they take my work without asking, (but do provide a link) and then give it away to anyone else who may want it. I'm all for spreading the AF word, but with all the hours of work put in on this site, I take this principle to heart.

Ben

---

Have you emailed them commenting?

No, I haven't. It's only one page at this point, there were others before, but now only the one. If I see any more of it, I'll make an issue of it.

Ben

Mi Ben
Let me give some input as a semi-professional writer.
There's kind of a need to welcome you to the big time!

First is copyright. This site is a fan site about characters to which someone else holds the copyright. Ideally, there should be a notice at least on the bottom of the main pages that the characters and likenesses are (c) Marvel Comics. As work for hire is still the comic industry standard, Marvel owns the pictures that make up the main banner. For any banner I'm sure the artist would not mind credit that it's his work/s, even if he does not own the images any more. For the current Alpha Waves banner, for instance, you "should" have a disclaimer or credit that states "All characters (c) Marvel Comics. Image manipulation by Ben Wells, based on artwork by Clayton Henry." Yes, that can get awkward.

Basically, in theory, Marvel woul have the same complaint about you and every other fan site for any character it owns. Legally, they don't fight it, because they do realize that the actual free publicity is worth more than any potential losses. You yourself acknowledge the boost to the site from wikipedia.

Current copyright law states something is copyrighted from the time of creation. But you may not be able to legally copyright anything on the site as your work is reliant on characters, illustrations and situations to which someone else holds the copyright.

Your complaints are valid, and tie directly into much of the copyright-internet debate, which ranges from legality of specific situations down to the cultural attitude, especially as learned by the internet generation, that information is and should always be free.

As wikipedia did provide a link, there is at least the spirit of giving you your due. It would be very reasonable for you to ask them for a byline that credits you as author of the article, and still reasonable for you to ask that the byline read that the article was by you for AlphaFlight.net, thus doubling your links.

If anything, based on the hits you get from wikipedia, you may want to offer other article links. Alpha as Canadian culture...Northstar as the earliest openly gay character in mainstream comics as part of gay culture...Sasquatch as fiction derived from the mythology/"occult" phenomenon...Aurora as an example of MPD depiction, etc. Just insist on the byline and credit to the site.

And as PWalk wisely pointed out, SOMEONE had to have submitted it. Can't hurt to find out who, because I think the worst part of the situation is that someone else marketed your work without your permission, consent or knowledge. No one else has any legal or ethical right to offer to share YOUR work as if it were hir own!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kozzi24

Mi Ben
Current copyright law states something is copyrighted from the time of creation. But you may not be able to legally copyright anything on the site as your work is reliant on characters, illustrations and situations to which someone else holds the copyright.

---

I believe that anything Ben wrote even though it is largely based on copyrighted material is still copyrightable by Ben. As long as it wasn't plagerized from another copyrighted source. All original writings are Ben's
I believe also that a disclaimer is a good idea at the bottom of any page to allow for copyright ownership to be known. Such as the Characters are copyrighht and TM of Marvel Characters Inc. and all text is copyright by Tonto's Text Troupe. Because Marvel hasn't got the right to reproduce the text and technically Ben doesn't have the rights to most of the artwork. Then there's the photomanips ... ah screw it let's not go there.


Johnny Canuck
I could be wrong but I don't think so.

Well the nature of the Wiki is that anybody, even without having a user account, can on the fly edit any page on the site. There's no person of authority who would be responsible, on the part of the Wiki organization, to email Ben about using the text. In fact, coping and pasting an entire article from another site is against the rules there.

Quote:

---

If you find a copyright infringement

It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.

Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different term

s, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL. Also, sometimes you will find text elsewhere on the Web that was copied from Wikipedia. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note in the talk page to discourage such false alarms in the future.

If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.

If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page.

In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project.

---

I'm quite happy to step in and rewrite the Shaman entry so it's not Ben's text verbatim. Whoever posted it in the first place was in error.

THanks for that offer Adam, but honestly, don't worry about it. I'm over the innitial wave of anger from it all. However if you DO feel like writing any character writeups, I could always use more for AF.net ;)

Ben

Well I feel obliged as a member of the Wiki community to fix any weird mistakes like that, so I just may do it anyways.

And you never know, I might take you up on that offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam

Well I feel obliged as a member of the Wiki community to fix any weird mistakes like that, so I just may do it anyways.

And you never know, I might take you up on that offer.

---

Well, like I said, I really don't mind it being there, I just would have appreciated having been asked to put it there.

Ben

interesting that the Madison Jeffries link there comes up with a Copywrite violation message liking back to my AF.net entry on him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Jeffries

Ben