$12256 / $11500
I have been using OGA for quite some time now. And during the time i have been here i have witnessed some drama on fold between various users, for many reasons. Most of the reasons are generally over licensing issues on user uploads. Most are sorted out relatively well, but some result in users being banned due to behaviour issues or continuing actions after fair warnings.
I agree with how OGA administrators handle most disagreements here, and feel that most actions that are taken are warranted, and i trust that what ever OGA's action is against a user, that it is one for the best of this site and its community.
But, Yesterday i came across a comment from a recently 'deactivated' user. it read as follows.
"NOTE: This user has been deactivated for repeatedly using copyright-infringing works incorporated into artwork. Assets from this user may not be legally useable in your project. Discretion is advised."
This appears to be in the 'Signiture' section of the user, and shows on every comment the user ever made.
Well, I'm not sure how i feel about this. I appreciate that OGA has some sort of responsability to let users know who may have used the work by the submitter i suppose, but could there be a better way? This just makes me feel a bit wierd and akward reading it like that. Is it not a little to far?
The artwork in question is not available anymore, and the user has been 'deactivated' / 'banned', so my only conclusion is admin have added this to the users account.
The artwork was on here for a fairly long time before it was seen/considered infringing works, and to my knowledge, once known it wasn't just a disabled asset link, the whole account was shut down. Normally i would see an 'opportunity' for users to explain or respond, but i didn't see it happen in this case. Again, I'm lead to beleive that things were dealt with privately and such actions from OGA taken as a result.
My concern here is, should admin 'flag' any of my work here as copyright infringing(which is isn't), Am i now likely to see a complete banned account and a 'NOTE' against my user name?
Also i would be interested in what others think here about the 'note'?
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
That was a somewhat special circumstance. The user had submitted infringing art for a much longer time than is typical before it was caught. The user also shared such art on the forums and with various individual game project art requests.
This made tracking down all the users who downloaded the infringing art and plan on using it in their game essentially impossible by normal means.
Because the the art was so blatantly infringing (not just a misunderstanding, the user directly lied about the content) and because the content was distributed so widely before admins caught it, I had very limited options for rapidly indicating to all potentially affected parties that the assets they may be using are problematic.
Adding the note to the signature line was the fastest way to notify all locations where that particular user had posted various infringing assets that caution was needed: As you can see in your screenshot above, there is potentially infringing works displayed on the very same post that the note appears. The intent was not to smear the user or discredit them (although I recognize that may be an unfortunate consequence).
Could you have a similar note agasint your user name? Well, if you post a large quantity of infringing artwork, you lie about it and intentionally hide that you used ripped components from commercial companies known for DMCA's, and your artwork is up far longer than it should be, allowing for an unfortunately wide distribution of the infringing works, then... yes. I guess so. I don't think that's likely as 1) I'm pretty upset about that situation and have redoubled my efforts to be more vigilant and 2) I'm hoping there's a better way to quickly notifiy victims in the future.
Sorry, guys. I really don't like how this one turned out. Other admins were more offended by that user's actions than I was, but this is on me. :(
--Medicine Storm@medicinestorm, thanks for responding.
Please don't think i am digging at anyone for this approach, i was just seeking 'Clarity' on how OGA now handles such events, and is this a new thing going forward. You have already mentioned that this was a 'Special circumstance' and i totally respect the decision, and completely understand the decision to do this.
If someone has been found continouisy uploading copyright infringing works knowlingly, and against OGA policys, then its actually a good way to let others know and the right action taken.
I was just worried that should a couple of assets be found on a users profile, would just be an outward ban or will there be an opportunity to 'Appeal' or 'Discuss' such work as i have known it to be. i would hate to think that any of my work was 'suspect' and was at the opinion that it was 'copyright infringing' and be shut out of my account with a 'NOTE' left in signiture.
This all seem to happen so quickly, and im like 'WOOOOAH' :)
It's not an easy job you have keeping up with all that is submitted, you cant see everything, and considering you are somewhat relaint on the users being honest, which most are, its a shame there are a couple that have a disregard for copyright licensing, or just have no idea of how it works, or even bother to understand the risks involved when uploading, makes it even worse when they do know but carry on anyway. for which the punishment is warranted in my opinion.
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
Understood. And thanks.
Yes, I always make every effort to allow an appeal. If something is suspect, that art may be flagged and a comment asking for an explanation, allowing the submitter to explain or justify the submission, even if I'm really sure it's never going to be allowed. As a less-than-omnicient person, there is always a chance Nintendo gave explicit permission to you to create mario derivatives or something and I wasn't aware of it.
Submitting a few infringing works? we have to take them down, but the submitter isn't banned for it. If however, someone submits in bad faith, admins take it down and explain why that can't be permitted, and the submitter continues to repeatedly submit the same type of bad-faith assets despite multiple explanations and requests to correct... yeah, that submitter is going to be banned eventually.
I have never banned someone for not understanding licensing. It's complicated and everyone makes a mistake at some point. I will always allow people to ask for licensing explanations and am happy to provide information about how it all works (to the best of my own understanding). I don't even mind people responding with "F*** YOU, NOBODY WILL SUE, YOU CANT STOP ME" a few times. After enough times, though, I start counting these as "appeal reviewed, and subsequently denied for non-compelling argument". Furthermore, if something is flagged, and an admin asks for clarification, and the submitter outright lies about it? I consider the opportunity for appeal satisfied when they defrauded this community. Even then I've never banned someone for blatantly lying only one time.
TL;DR: You're not going to get banned for mistakes, misunderstandings, or one-time offenses. :)
--Medicine StormNow everything starts to make sense ... why I can't find some pieces of art any longer ... and why my collection broke when I tried to sort the submissions.
I'd say it's especially tricky since that person submitted artwork under cc0, that can get users into a lot of troubles.
Especially since you have trouble to find the origins if submissions get deleted.
It always makes me kinda sad when people put infringing work under creative commons licenses. (sometimes it's even a common thing to do)
Sorry about your collections, Basto. Let me see if I can fix them. Which collection(s) broke?
--Medicine StormI just had to remove the empty nodes, but it took me a while to understand that.