HRWiki talk:FAQ

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Have a question? Post it here and we will try to answer it as soon as possible.

Current | Archive 1 (1-96)

Contents 1 User creation log 2 Archive 3 Copyright 4 messages

User creation log

How come the bar on the log doesn't link to the user creation log? - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

We actually did have a User Creatinon Log for a bit a month or so ago. Unfortuately, it soon became flooded with hundreds of WOW usernames. Tom disabled it and we haven't used it since. — Lapper (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Is WOW working on HRwiki? He officialy renounced vandalism at Wikipedia some time ago. I suppose he might still be vandalizing other wikis though. BrokenSegue 04:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There were a few WOW attacks in the past, yes. Homestramy20|^Talk 04:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Archive

This page was 89kb long, 57 larger than it should be. I've archived all answered questions. - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Copyright

What copyright/license is hrwiki under [the bottom of the page says by-nc-sa, is that correct]? It includes so much copyirghted content (pictures, transcripts, etc) I can't imagine this site can legaly use so much copyrighted material (fair use goes only so far). Have the Brothers Chaps commented on this site (have they given you permission?). BrokenSegue 19:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

TBC have commented on the site. See here. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to mention that, as an example at least of their opinion of the site, thought it doesn't have any bearing on copyright questions. See HRWiki:General disclaimer for our take on that. For an example of how we draw the line on what's not fair use, see Talk:More Fan Costumes#Pictures. At first we were including screenshots of each slide, until the 9th comment brought up the fact that it was copyright violation, at which point we removed them. —AbdiViklas 20:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright policies seem too lax here. Where My Hat Is At? is a copy of an entire book screen by screen! The Chaps would have an easy time destroying this site in court (if they wanted to). Perhaps you could coax the chaps to release all of their content uner a non-commercial license. That way they can still make money of it and you are free to archive it. Just some thoughts. BrokenSegue 20:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we've discussed pages like Where My Hat Is At? before... But it seems to have fallen by the wayside. This is a good alert to bring it back to the public eye. --DorianGray

Yes, that discussion had kind of tapered off, which is why I'm glad you brought it up, BrokenSegue, because I've taken this opportunity to remove all the images on pages that completely reproduce H*R content in its original form (things no longer accessible, like the weekly sketchbook, do not fall in this category); namely, I fixed, Original Book, Where My Hat Is At?, Fan Costume Commentary, and More Fan Costumes. — It's dot com 05:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What about Museum Sketchbook? — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 05:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right; there are actually two sections in the museum that need attention: the one you mention and Fan Stuff. I'm going to let the dust settle from my most recent actions before I tackle those. In the meantime, feel free to take it on yourself, should you so desire. — It's dot com 06:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

And I'll also bring up the Strumstar Hammer page again, which not only needs to be not-fair-use-images-purged (there needs to be a better term), but just re-added to the kids' book page, as it is an Easter egg from there. --DorianGray

What about text? The transcripts of the epsidoees surely are copyrighted. How can you claim fairuse when you are repdocuing the whole thing (with sometimes minimal commentary). Yes, you have too many pictures but the text seems to be just as bad . No? BrokenSegue 21:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The Brothers Chaps have not taken the liberty yet of copyrighting every episodes' text. However, most characters' names are copyrighted. We are able to stay in good standing and out of a lawsuit by making this a non-profit site (hence the .org). As well as that all money made, such as through donations, goes straight back into the site. — Lapper (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So, the text is free to use (because they aren't copyrighted)? I find that hard to believe. If so then Great, I'll use those texts everywhere! Aren't the transcripts automagically protected by law because they reserve the rights over the cartoon as a whole? Also, the fact that you are a non-profit doesn't shield you from copyright infringement lawsuits (it might make you look a little better when claiming fairuse though) BrokenSegue 02:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can use the texts anywhere... as long as you give credit to TBC and don't post them on a money-making website. - Joshua 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

(Double edit conflict) No, no. A copyright isn't something you file like a patent; it exists from the moment you create a piece of intellectual property, regardless of whether you put © on it. You possess the copyright to the note you pass to your friend in class. (Now you can cede that right to another party, like a publisher, or choose to invoke a different set of rights like Creative Commons. And I'm no Litigation Jackson, but I'm fairly sure that our being non-profit (are we really? We're no 501-c3 or whatever) doesn't give us some kind of immunity to the law. It might strengthen a case for fair use, since one of the requirements is that the use be non-commercial. But getting back to BrokenSegue's comment, I'm secure in my conscience that we're fair use. The Fair Use clause(s) basically boil down to three considerations:

1. The amount of the work reproduced,
2. The nature and purpose of the reproduction, and
3. Whether the reproduction would prevent people from purchasing (or in this case viewing) the original

We're pretty clearly safe on #3 with the pictures removed now; for #2 our purpose is informative and documentary rather than commercial (if our bookkeeping practices support this that's good!). Your concern was with #1, since we reproduce the whole script of each 'toon. However, I think the argument that we're losing both the visual and audio portion of the 'toon justifies us. These laws are made intentionally vague, and don't spell out exactly what percentages are okay. I don't know (and maybe somebody could email an expert?) how much water this argument would hold legally, but it convinces me adequately. —AbdiViklas 02:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

AbdiViklas, I'd say your analysis is quite to the point and accurate. I'm not sure to whom it was adressed, but I know that copyrights aren't filed. The Brothers Chap don't have to officaily say anywhere that they have rights (but they do anyways at the bottom of the page to be clear). I think somthing that would answer our question is, is it legal to post scripts of movies (think Holloywood) online. I don't know the answer to that question. If it isn't, (and IANAL) then I'd say you have to remove the scripts from hrwiki (no matter how nice and useful they are). Of course what the stuidos say and what the script archives say may differ widely. I happen to think Joshua is completely wrong (if it's free to use as long as you cite the source, then it needs to say that somewhere [like cc-by-sa or copyrighted free use provided that source is cited, etc], I can't find anywhere where it says that) but what do I know (you're the resident HR experts, not I). Oh wait, was Joshua saying that I can use HRwiki text under those terms? Yes, I know that. I was asking about the transcripts. BrokenSegue 03:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit Conflict I agree with Abdi. And we're not the only site to provide entire transcripts (or even entire movie scripts) of shows. I think we're safe enough within the realm of "fair use". Another thing to take into consideration is that the transcripts are done in good faith and, at least unofficially, seem to be ok with TBC. I beleive it would likely be up to TBC themselves to enforce their copyright rights, which they have done before when fans have made fanstuff using their original flash sprites, but their lack of action to this point, and even acknowledgment of this wiki's work, is strong evidence that TBC likely has no desire to seek any such legal action (that is if we actually are violating copyright law). --Stux 03:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Good faith" won't help very much in a law suit. Has any considered asking them to license their transcripts into, say, cc by-nc-sa? Even if you know they won't sue you it's till best not to be violating their copyright. You never know, one day somthing here could irk them and they might try to shut hrwiki down (or have you remove tons of content). Sounds like this isn't much of an issue (I'm still not sure those movie transcript websites are legal though). BrokenSegue 03:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Another point: This is quite a gray area we're delving into. If you think about it, the transcripts do not originate from some book that was copied or typed up that has all the words that the characters use. They were transcribed by people listening to the words and written down, much in the same way many of the song lyrics sites copy down song lyrics (transcribed by third parties usually) and make it available to the public. For some reason the music industry has not deemed those sites copyright violations (or have not cared to prosecute) as they have direct copies of music. --Stux 03:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Stux, you know that you don't have to point out every time you have an edit conflict, right? ;) It's only when a discussion doesn't make sense without noting the conflict that you need to say anything. Edit conflicts come and go, but they don't read very well in a thread. Anyways, on to business: If TBC ever did want to shut us down, we wouldn't have a Tape-Leg to stand on. We exist solely at their pleasure. Stux is right, though: TBC are aware of our existence, and, for whatever reason, they have elected to let us do our thing (and have even given us high fives on several occasions). I think that as long as we respect certain boundaries (such as not duplicating a whole page of images you could see just as easily on their site), then they will continue letting us unofficially transcribe the toons and use a screenshot here and there. They've even used the wiki when they were stumped. As long as we're mutually beneficial, I think we're cool. Rock, rock on. — It's dot com 03:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

{double edit conflict} In case there's any uncertainty as to what H*R's current copyright policies are, see here, under "Terms of Use", 2nd 'graph. Also, BrokenSegue, TV show fansites with transcripts might be a somewhat more comparable analogy than movies. Movie scripts are often published in hard copy, which would complicate things. Even with the TV shows it's weird, though, because the script might be copyrighted to a different entity than the show as a whole. I say again it might be worth an e-mail to a lawyer for an opinion. If we had some way of finding lawyers who are H*R fans they might answer for the good of the cause.

Also, Segue, a simpler solution than convincing TBC to change their licensing universally (which could have unforeseen consequences; we can't control how other sites might use them) might be simply to get their formal permission. Note the line in the policy I linked to: "Without the prior written consent of the owner...." —AbdiViklas 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Double or triple edit conflict You're right: BrokenSegue you never know. Should TBC decide that the transcripts to do belong there (if indeed they don't), then at that point they can be taken down. I see no need to do that beforehand. --Stux 03:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Stux, you know that you don't have to point out every time you have an edit conflict, right? ;) Uhhhhhhh... right! right! sure. But I like those little bold edit conflict notices. Generally to avoid double edit conflicts I avoid reading the new post and hurry to post mine, thus tacking on the generic Quadruple edit conflict in order to increase my chances of a sound, succinct and sucessful submission. (What does succinct mean again?) --Stux 03:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem of waiting until they they yell at us is that if you think that you might be commiting a copyright violation (copyvio) and you leave and say exactly what you just said (let's wait until they sue us to remove it) then you are liable for damages because you flagrantly violated the law. AS opposed to ignorantly violated the law in which case you only have to remove the offending text (that' my interpretation from my experience from Wikipedia). This is all very hypothetical of course, but I could imagine people re-using content from hrwiki in a way that TPC might not like. So, who's going to email them and ask for some sort of official nod? Also, it wouldn't work to have them say "No one can reuse it except HRwiki" because all content here has to be redisrtibutable under creative commons (which it wouldn't be because others couldn't use the HR content licensed only to HRwiki). BrokenSegue 04:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The only persons who need to speak with them are JoeyDay and Tom. You should take it up with him. — It's dot com 04:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

BrokenSegue: Yes, what we are doing is likely illegal. But, you are not a lawyer. More importantly, you are not The Brothers Chaps' lawyer.

Joey Day and I have both personally communicated with TBC and they have given us nothing but praise (and recently, even financial support). The second I am contacted by TBC with a request to change the Wiki in any way in regard to copyright, even if it is to take the entire thing down, I will fully comply in the fastest way possible.

It's important to note however that we do our best to respect certain boundaries. We also do what we do pretty darn well, which only adds to TBC's popularity.

Thank you for your concern, and please try to enjoy yourself here. -- Tom 04:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

messages

How do I read messages? The orange bar keeps saying that I have new messages when I already read it (I think).

First, simply click the link in the orange bar; this takes you to User talk:Aerosmth rules. Now once you've done that, it's supposed to go away, but it hasn't been doing that for some people because of a glitch. What you need to do is, once you're on your talk page, click the little tab at the top that says "unwatch". That should fix it. —AbdiViklas 02:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)