Website Copyright

OK. This is a good time to start the first of many discussions surrounding web-site and in-world content, created originally by me and currently in use by the group. Given that it's also what I think is the least controversial of the topics, I thought I'd start with a discussion of the content up on the new N'burg website.

When I created the many pages of content for the original web site, the content was released under the Creative Commons License "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0", denoted by the "CC - Some Rights Reserved" logo and link at the bottom of the page. The terms and conditions can be read here:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/

It states:

To be in compliance with the copyright, you'll need to add me as author (Ulrika Zugzwang) to all the components of the web site originally created by me (currently all of the prospectus) and seek permission for modified sections of original Nburg-website text. Additionally, those sections should be marked as being under the CC "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs" license. I, of course, very much want you to have the use of this content and would even like to see you reestablish the CC license for current authors as well.

Let me know what you think.

~Ulrika~

Does the SC's refusal to engage in dialogue also extend to other topics as well? I hope not, as I had counted on it to facilitate resolution of the IP issues. While I hope such dialog will be possible, given the stilted and illegal way the last hearing went, I'm going to have to assist on third-party arbitration, which is allowed in the constitution, albeit with an external arbitrator. So let's chat this up and then go to a third party if it looks like mutual agreement is not possible.

~Ulrika~

EDIT: Well, the *wiki* isn't using any portion of your website, at least. unless that graphic is yours, and it can be gone easy enough.

The SC does not "refuse" to do anything, and the offer on direct settlement is indeed being seriously considered, but it's not the SC's job to settle directly; that's for the Guild & RA to co-jointly decide. The SC is merely an observer here. However, some people still have their daily RL chores to attend to, and let's be honest, one thing at the time!

There are two issues here to discuss. One is the alleged IP rights on
in-world content. I think that these are far easier to discuss and reach an agreement about. Content in SL is reasonably clear to label (except perhaps for texturing work inside non-mod objects) and it's possible to examine the current SL market value of the work done, and reach a figure, if the option for direct settlement is the one both parties (City & Ulrika) agree upon. If there is no agreement on direct settlement, there are several other avenues of arbitration. In any case, simple removal of content is always an option. Thus I'm fairly confident that there can be an agreement.

The other issue is much harder — the content on the website. While I think there are no issues regarding the web design by itself, there are lots of complex issues regarding the content (it draws from a wide variety of sources, some of whom are not SL residents any more). This, I'm afraid to say, is beyond the SC's competence to judge or pronounce. It's a case of international copyright law. So, either there is a direct settlement, or it's a case for the DMCA to judge internationally. In any case, as an act of good faith, the SC can ask to have the content in question removed, if that is your will, until an agreement on the ownership of the content and its use can be determined. Some of it is also hopelessly outdated and erroneous and would need rewriting sooner or later.

Aliasi: graphic on the wiki duly changed

Well, this is a good lesson, for all, it seems.

Painful lesson for N'burg citizens, and an example for all others.

Whenever you have a group of people working together, be sure to have the 'paperwork', in digital domain: the licenses, done well, right from the start.

The easiest way is to choose a RIGHT Creative Commons (or GNU or BSD) license for anything created. Not much fuss, and it'll help the future. Well, the bad part is that there WAS a CC-license on the website, but it was not a 'good for the group' type.

In fact, had Ulrika been 'rendered incapable' of updating or developing it earlier, the problem would've surfaced way earlier.

So to learn from the lesson: be sure to choose your licenses well, and do it as early as possible! (And I still feel sorry for you, though, it IS a painful and unwarranted thing

Also, Ulrika's license is a 'dictatorial type' license, which seems strange when she seems to like 'socialism' better.

Nonsense! It is quite trivial to determine what works are mine. Since I was the sole editor and creator of the entire original website, any text and graphics that existed on my server when Aliasi recursively copied it are under the CC copyright. The only exception are external works (Bill of Rights) and group-edited documents (Constitution). Otherwise all content (everything in the prospectus for example) is entirely my work, which I typed on my keyboard and incorporated directly into the website.

I specifically put it under a non-derivative license such that someone could not recursively copy the work, change a few words, and call it theirs. Sound familiar?

You are in violation of the CC copyright. Once you come to that understanding, we can work on terms of use or you can simply opt to remove it all. In the short term, however, I recommend placing my name on the appropriate documents, as an act of good faith.

~Ulrika~

Thanks for your statement, Ulrika. It certainly clarifies the issue a lot; since the visible page stated the copyright on the displayed content to belong to "Neualtenburg, Inc." (although, granted, the invisible comments stated otherwise), it was not clear what parts of the old website were yours only (and not the City's) and which ones were the City's, or, worse than that, belonged to other copyright owners. The license didn't state which was which, and Creative Commons sadly changed the way you could browse for their registrations, so it was not clear to sort out the mess of multiple co-ownership.

Thus, to the best of my knowledge, all content over which you claimed any copyright based on your previous post was deleted from the site. Let me know if you find anything else you'd like to be removed. Several people have access to the site's backoffice, so they'll be able to remove any further content as well if I'm not around.

Note that your understanding of the "ownership" of the copyright on the material may not coincide with other's opinions, but this is hardly the place to discuss this. I think that the important bit is to finally have a written statement on what exactly was considered copyrighted by you (as opposed as copyrighted by the City) and delete it first, and discuss the rest of it later.

FYI, each webpage contained in the meta tags and comments the following:

  <meta name="copyright" content="2004-2005 Ulrika Zugzwang">

  <!-- www.Neualtenburg.org © 2005-2006 Ulrika Zugzwang
       Unauthorized duplication is prohibited.

       Second Life and Linden Labs are registered trademarks of
       Linden Research, Inc. No infringement is intended.
  -->

~Ulrika~

Very true, and an undisputed statement. As said, it's unusual to show one visible copyright on the pages, and show a different one which is only visible by doing a "view source". Which one has precedence? That's why your statement was vital — the invisible copyright is the one we should look at, and ignore the other.

Issue solved

Also, these pages are either my exact work or a slightly changed derivative copy.

http://neualtenburg.info/id15.html
http://neualtenburg.info/id19.html

I should also mention that you are not required to delete the pages, instead you are required to give credit and seek permission for their use. If you intend to recreate them to get around the copyright, do make sure that they differ substantially in form and reuse no copyrighted text.

~Ulrika~

I'm glad you agreed to this, as it brings me to a final issue concerning copyright. As you can see from my webpage,

       www.Neualtenburg.org © 2005-2006 Ulrika Zugzwang
       Unauthorized duplication is prohibited.

I have claimed the name "Neualtenburg" and its domain under this same copyright. As the inventor of the name, creator of the original group, creator of the forum, creator of the website, and creator of the city, I have always maintained ownership of it. We need to negotiate its use.

~Ulrika~

But "Altenburg" is all mine. mine. mine. mine

Actually, it belongs to the Germans.

~Ulrika~

damn germans

In keeping with my love for the Vikings --I will name my city

"Aldrigstad"

so there.

Why even argue with Ulrika?
Just ban her.

Because that would be illegal according to N'burg law. The whole point of the system is to prevent abuses such as arbitrary or vengeful bannings and provide due process to those with grievances.

~Ulrika~

She'll just keep at it in a different venue.

I would suggest honoring her visionary talents and contributions as the creative force behind the N'burg Projekt; after all without her, it wouldn't exist.

But that was the Projekt - the creation of the City, the implementation of the government.

We are in a new phase now - the administration of the City-State.

We, the citizens, need to move out of a ad hoc decision making process. We need to a sit down and create a group vision of where we would like to go and come up with a plan to accomplish that. Or, if that has been done, put in in writing on the website for all to see.

Once we have a vision and a strategy, individuals can decide if N'burg fits into their own personal SL plans.

I didn't join this venture to be mired in forum drama - I joined to take a brilliant idea and move forward with its execution.

Yes! The ad-hoc decision making (operation as a beind-the-scenes oligarchy) needs to supplanted with an adherence to the law and its processes. If you're really interested in ending this forum drama, perhaps you could pettition your representatives in the RA to pass a law that would extend the right to a fair trail with a jury of one's peers to noncitizens. The SC seems to be applying the rules and punishments to noncitizens without providing due process.

More generally, creating a strong and fair legal system that abides by the intent of the constitution is an integral part of this "brilliant idea" and to truly execute this vision, one must ensure that the city's institutions are acting consitently, fairly, and with accountability. Remember, it is the struggles (not the good times) that reveal a government's true strength. What and who do you see in the government that is currently failing during these hard times and how could the government be improved in the future?


Specifically, there are many issues I am here to clear up (we're about halfway through the list) and once they are resolved to our mutual satisfaction, I can rest in peace and things will calm down.

~Ulrika~

A good example is in this thread

Where a personal attack is being made, but the SC which has battled to become sole forum moderators, have apparently decided that it's better to not address forum issues in the forum.

It's quite disturbing that an entire branch of the government has instituted public silence to seek refuge from criticism, opting instead to communicate out of the public eye via email. As you said, it appears that one of the side effects of this unusual act is an impairment in their ability to moderate the forums.

Strange times.

~Ulrika~

"Nevertown"?

It's more logical than "New Old Fortress"

As a viking descendant I feel quite authoritative in being able to confirm your translation Kaz. And can I just add I consider the name to be rather apt considering the recent change of heart. And welcome back Kendra by the way. I'm looking forward to the next debate