Submission licensing clarification Wanted
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
   
Author Message

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 602
Submissions: 15

Submission licensing clarification Wanted
Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:58 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Quote:
All web content © 2000-2012 The Maille Artisans International League (M.A.I.L.). Articles, Weaves, Links, and Gallery submissions are the property of the author(s), and any reproduction requires their express written permission.

The Maille Artisans International League (M.A.I.L.) and any affiliates thereof will not be held responsible for any injuries or mishaps in the use or misuse of any information presented at this website whether intentional or coincidental.

Maille construction is not intended for children or intended to be taken lightly. Care must be taken at all times, as sharp hand and power tools may be used, as well as other materials capable of causing injuries or repetitive stress disorders. Take precautions and have fun mailling responsibly.


Quote:
All web content © 2000-2012 The Maille Artisans International League


What is not included in "web content"?
What about 2013-15?

Quote:
Articles, Weaves, Links, and Gallery submissions are the property of the author(s), and any reproduction requires their express written permission


While articles and gallery submissions are under copyright, and should be under those license terms, links are not copyrightable, but the content behind may be. Weaves as such are not really copyrightable, but the text and pictures are, as well as the combination.

Is this the full license agreement, or just a statement?
Changes should be made if this is the full text; Maille should retain the right to change picture and Edit text of weave submissions.

I want to know what MWs and DLs Stance is on CC licenses?


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3064
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Re: Submission licensing clarification Wanted
Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:53 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
Quote:
All web content © 2000-2012 The Maille Artisans International League (M.A.I.L.). Articles, Weaves, Links, and Gallery submissions are the property of the author(s), and any reproduction requires their express written permission.

The Maille Artisans International League (M.A.I.L.) and any affiliates thereof will not be held responsible for any injuries or mishaps in the use or misuse of any information presented at this website whether intentional or coincidental.

Maille construction is not intended for children or intended to be taken lightly. Care must be taken at all times, as sharp hand and power tools may be used, as well as other materials capable of causing injuries or repetitive stress disorders. Take precautions and have fun mailling responsibly.


Quote:
All web content © 2000-2012 The Maille Artisans International League


What is not included in "web content"?
What about 2013-15?


All content that is not user generated (see below) is (c) MAIL -- IE: The site code itself, etc.
Also, I need to update the date on that, you're right.

Karpeth wrote:
Quote:
Articles, Weaves, Links, and Gallery submissions are the property of the author(s), and any reproduction requires their express written permission


While articles and gallery submissions are under copyright, and should be under those license terms, links are not copyrightable, but the content behind may be. Weaves as such are not really copyrightable, but the text and pictures are, as well as the combination.

The submissions IE: What you submitted, the text, and image, are your property.

Karpeth wrote:
Is this the full license agreement, or just a statement?
Changes should be made if this is the full text; Maille should retain the right to change picture and Edit text of weave submissions.


The full text that you agree to is on the submission page. Any changes need to be voted on.
In the case of weaves, that is:
Weave Submission wrote:

Terms and Conditions (AKA 'The Legal Stuff.'):
In order to protect M.A.I.L. from copyright issues, and in order to protect the author from the blatant theft of his work, M.A.I.L. has a simple agreement between the organization and the authors.

"I hereby grant Maille Artisans International League rights of publication of my work on the M.A.I.L. site. In cases of re-publication, the aforementioned M.A.I.L. must recieve my prior permission and in said re-publication provide me with credit for my work.
I further understand that as the owner of such material it is my right to have it removed from the MAIL site for any reason."

Check this box if you agree to the above terms and conditions.


All "previous" content was submitted under the old submission policy and CANNOT have its text heavily edited. Per the content policy, we reserve the right to edit for clarification, spelling, etc...
Picture changes is a touchy subject, but existing pictures ARE part of the weave submission, and thus protected. There can be "other" pictures shown alongside them, but they must still be featured and accessible.

Karpeth wrote:
I want to know what MWs and DLs Stance is on CC licenses?


If we get into the Creative Commons debate again, I might lose my mind. I offered a solution last time, and almost got lynched for it. People get hot and bothered, and it's too much personal stress to attempt to induce reason.

CC has always been in the back of my mind, and would be a great implementation, but it wouldn't change extant submissions. Merely be an option (read: NOT THE ONLY OPTION) for new submissions.



Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 602
Submissions: 15

Re: Submission licensing clarification Wanted
Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:05 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

[/quote]
Daemon_Lotos wrote:
Karpeth wrote:
Quote:
All web content © 2000-2012 The Maille Artisans International League (M.A.I.L.). Articles, Weaves, Links, and Gallery submissions are the property of the author(s), and any reproduction requires their express written permission.

The Maille Artisans International League (M.A.I.L.) and any affiliates thereof will not be held responsible for any injuries or mishaps in the use or misuse of any information presented at this website whether intentional or coincidental.

Maille construction is not intended for children or intended to be taken lightly. Care must be taken at all times, as sharp hand and power tools may be used, as well as other materials capable of causing injuries or repetitive stress disorders. Take precautions and have fun mailling responsibly.


Quote:
All web content © 2000-2012 The Maille Artisans International League


What is not included in "web content"?
What about 2013-15?


All content that is not user generated (see below) is (c) MAIL -- IE: The site code itself, etc.
Also, I need to update the date on that, you're right.

Karpeth wrote:
Quote:
Articles, Weaves, Links, and Gallery submissions are the property of the author(s), and any reproduction requires their express written permission


While articles and gallery submissions are under copyright, and should be under those license terms, links are not copyrightable, but the content behind may be. Weaves as such are not really copyrightable, but the text and pictures are, as well as the combination.

The submissions IE: What you submitted, the text, and image, are your property.


Then there is an s too Much. It currently implies weaves and submissions, not weave submissions

Daemon_Lotos wrote:


Karpeth wrote:
Is this the full license agreement, or just a statement?
Changes should be made if this is the full text; Maille should retain the right to change picture and Edit text of weave submissions.


The full text that you agree to is on the submission page. Any changes need to be voted on.
In the case of weaves, that is:
Weave Submission wrote:

Terms and Conditions (AKA 'The Legal Stuff.'):
In order to protect M.A.I.L. from copyright issues, and in order to protect the author from the blatant theft of his work, M.A.I.L. has a simple agreement between the organization and the authors.

"I hereby grant Maille Artisans International League rights of publication of my work on the M.A.I.L. site. In cases of re-publication, the aforementioned M.A.I.L. must recieve my prior permission and in said re-publication provide me with credit for my work.
I further understand that as the owner of such material it is my right to have it removed from the MAIL site for any reason."

Check this box if you agree to the above terms and conditions.


All "previous" content was submitted under the old submission policy and CANNOT have its text heavily edited. Per the content policy, we reserve the right to edit for clarification, spelling, etc...
Picture changes is a touchy subject, but existing pictures ARE part of the weave submission, and thus protected. There can be "other" pictures shown alongside them, but they must still be featured and accessible.


While we CANNOT relicense unilateraly, we can stop offering the current license, and ask the other party to relicense.

I feel we need to reserve the right to be able to change pictures and text, while the submitter reserves the right to his original image. I move in favour of this proposition.
Daemon_Lotos wrote:


Karpeth wrote:
I want to know what MWs and DLs Stance is on CC licenses?


If we get into the Creative Commons debate again, I might lose my mind. I offered a solution last time, and almost got lynched for it. People get hot and bothered, and it's too much personal stress to attempt to induce reason.

CC has always been in the back of my mind, and would be a great implementation, but it wouldn't change extant submissions. Merely be an option (read: NOT THE ONLY OPTION) for new submissions.


Could you Link to the last discussion, or reprise your opinion?
Has anyone moved for changing extant submissions?


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Re: Submission licensing clarification Wanted
Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:57 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
If we get into the Creative Commons debate again, I might lose my mind. I offered a solution last time, and almost got lynched for it. People get hot and bothered, and it's too much personal stress to attempt to induce reason.

CC has always been in the back of my mind, and would be a great implementation, but it wouldn't change extant submissions. Merely be an option (read: NOT THE ONLY OPTION) for new submissions.

Lorenzo managed to put a Creative Commons License on a scale flowers picture and this one. DL cannot force people to do this. Lorenzo was making a point.

It was quite controversial at the time... I personally expect my pictures to be pilfered. I would appreciate it if I received credit, and when I find them not credited, I report them. All I want is that people credit my pictures instead of pretend that they personally took them. Otherwise, I'm fine with them being all over the internet. If fact, isn't that the point?


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Joined: March 29, 2005
Posts: 500
Submissions: 26
Location: Plumstead, London

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:56 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

We have to be careful about this. A lot of the freedom we have here hinges on free will and the respect for the art and discipline required to do what we do.

We're like the masons. Masons always help a fellow brother in need. Now I'm not saying we should go that far but to lock down designs and get all MINE MINE MINE and grabby about who can build what (which is where it will end up) will kill the art. It's starts with protecting images of weaves, then the weaves themselves, the pictures of chainmaille bowls, then the bowls themselves, then some asshat mentions the words "derivative works" and suddenly nobody can make anything "just in case" they get a S.A.D. Order.

I can see why people may like the idea of everything being all nice and secure and no one is allowed to do anything. But the door swings both ways. You loose your freedom by degrees.

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 691
Submissions: 390
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:13 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

i don't think you really want to know what i think about copyright or ownership because it's likely beyond what anyone is ready to accept. i don't believe in ownership to put it bluntly. i don't put any watermarking on any of my pics. the pictures and materials that i use are for anyone to use. like lorriane, i only ask that people don't misrepresent them or pretend that they took the picture. in my world, steeling, is actually just disrespecting another person's use of an object or idea. if i'm using a picture, then another person should respect my usage of it. similar to land, if i'm farming land, then someone should not come and destroy what i've planted. ownership creates problems. most noticeably in this example: if someone comes up to you and tells you "someone stole your car", you would be very upset. your anxiety levels would go up and you would go into "doing" mode and try to get your car back. but, if that same someone came up to you and said, "someone stole my car," then you would have a totally different reaction. you might be sympathetic and say, "i'm sorry." only one word changed in the two scenarios. the concept of "mine" and "yours" is huge in our heads. wars are fought over it. people resort to name calling and violence over it. i've been working a long time trying to unlearn it.

so, when it comes to this system of owning words and photos within this website, i don't even agree with the basic premise or wording in the rules and regulations. the system that i would build would be completely different and i know people aren't ready for that kind of system yet. it requires too much responsibility and respect.

i know many people here don't like my ramblings (philosophies). but, that's who i am and i'm not going to change because some people don't appreciate what i have to say. if i'm asked, "what do you think," i'm going to say what i think.

from what i have read above, there isn't much that has been agreed upon and i don't think much can be done to change the rules of licensing and copyright when so many people are stuck within the concept of "mine."



Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 602
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 20, 2015 6:06 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

mithrilweaver wrote:
i don't think you really want to know what i think about copyright or ownership because it's likely beyond what anyone is ready to accept. i don't believe in ownership to put it bluntly. i don't put any watermarking on any of my pics. the pictures and materials that i use are for anyone to use. like lorriane, i only ask that people don't misrepresent them or pretend that they took the picture. in my world, steeling, is actually just disrespecting another person's use of an object or idea. if i'm using a picture, then another person should respect my usage of it. similar to land, if i'm farming land, then someone should not come and destroy what i've planted. ownership creates problems. most noticeably in this example: if someone comes up to you and tells you "someone stole your car", you would be very upset. your anxiety levels would go up and you would go into "doing" mode and try to get your car back. but, if that same someone came up to you and said, "someone stole my car," then you would have a totally different reaction. you might be sympathetic and say, "i'm sorry." only one word changed in the two scenarios. the concept of "mine" and "yours" is huge in our heads. wars are fought over it. people resort to name calling and violence over it. i've been working a long time trying to unlearn it.

so, when it comes to this system of owning words and photos within this website, i don't even agree with the basic premise or wording in the rules and regulations. the system that i would build would be completely different and i know people aren't ready for that kind of system yet. it requires too much responsibility and respect.

i know many people here don't like my ramblings (philosophies). but, that's who i am and i'm not going to change because some people don't appreciate what i have to say. if i'm asked, "what do you think," i'm going to say what i think.

from what i have read above, there isn't much that has been agreed upon and i don't think much can be done to change the rules of licensing and copyright when so many people are stuck within the concept of "mine."


I usually try not to insult people, but can you even read? Everyone in this topic is pro copyleft. We were all saying the same thing; legally, the content is IP. All opinions in this topic were "that's bad." You are far from alone.

I appreciate to hear that you are in the same camp, but please stop trying to be a martyr or a revolutionary.

The problem is, you haven't even touches the subject of CC. I asked a simple question, and you misrepresent the opinion of others while disregarding the question in a Wall of Text.

MW. Please. Tone the hate down.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:01 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
mithrilweaver wrote:
i don't think you really want to know what i think about copyright or ownership because it's likely beyond what anyone is ready to accept. i don't believe in ownership to put it bluntly. i don't put any watermarking on any of my pics. the pictures and materials that i use are for anyone to use. like lorriane, i only ask that people don't misrepresent them or pretend that they took the picture. in my world, steeling, is actually just disrespecting another person's use of an object or idea. if i'm using a picture, then another person should respect my usage of it. similar to land, if i'm farming land, then someone should not come and destroy what i've planted. ownership creates problems. most noticeably in this example: if someone comes up to you and tells you "someone stole your car", you would be very upset. your anxiety levels would go up and you would go into "doing" mode and try to get your car back. but, if that same someone came up to you and said, "someone stole my car," then you would have a totally different reaction. you might be sympathetic and say, "i'm sorry." only one word changed in the two scenarios. the concept of "mine" and "yours" is huge in our heads. wars are fought over it. people resort to name calling and violence over it. i've been working a long time trying to unlearn it.

so, when it comes to this system of owning words and photos within this website, i don't even agree with the basic premise or wording in the rules and regulations. the system that i would build would be completely different and i know people aren't ready for that kind of system yet. it requires too much responsibility and respect.

i know many people here don't like my ramblings (philosophies). but, that's who i am and i'm not going to change because some people don't appreciate what i have to say. if i'm asked, "what do you think," i'm going to say what i think.

from what i have read above, there isn't much that has been agreed upon and i don't think much can be done to change the rules of licensing and copyright when so many people are stuck within the concept of "mine."


I usually try not to insult people, but can you even read? Everyone in this topic is pro copyleft. We were all saying the same thing; legally, the content is IP. All opinions in this topic were "that's bad." You are far from alone.

I appreciate to hear that you are in the same camp, but please stop trying to be a martyr or a revolutionary.

The problem is, you haven't even touches the subject of CC. I asked a simple question, and you misrepresent the opinion of others while disregarding the question in a Wall of Text.

MW. Please. Tone the hate down.

I don't think mithrilweaver is being intentionally dense. I think he might have trouble understanding exactly what other people are saying because he has his mind already made up. I could be wrong. I often am...

I personally see the side of copyright. Why should you give away your sweat, art, time, money, and effort without getting anything in return? However, I can also see the side of people who want to freely share their IP.

I love when people share my pictures. I DO NOT love when people take credit for my pictures. I have had people use my pictures and tutorials to sell their classes on how to make a certain weave. I have had people use my pictures or designs to sell an article to a magazine. It's not... heartwarming. It hurts. As long as people say, "I found this on M.A.I.L. or Lorraine's Chains", well... I'm happy because they can go to either site and find where it came from. When someone claims my stuff as their own, I have issues with that. I realize my issues my be irrelevant, given the state of sharing on the internet. However, that doesn't allay my fears and hurt feelings.


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 602
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:13 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

lorraine wrote:
Karpeth wrote:
mithrilweaver wrote:
i don't think you really want to know what i think about copyright or ownership because it's likely beyond what anyone is ready to accept. i don't believe in ownership to put it bluntly. i don't put any watermarking on any of my pics. the pictures and materials that i use are for anyone to use. like lorriane, i only ask that people don't misrepresent them or pretend that they took the picture. in my world, steeling, is actually just disrespecting another person's use of an object or idea. if i'm using a picture, then another person should respect my usage of it. similar to land, if i'm farming land, then someone should not come and destroy what i've planted. ownership creates problems. most noticeably in this example: if someone comes up to you and tells you "someone stole your car", you would be very upset. your anxiety levels would go up and you would go into "doing" mode and try to get your car back. but, if that same someone came up to you and said, "someone stole my car," then you would have a totally different reaction. you might be sympathetic and say, "i'm sorry." only one word changed in the two scenarios. the concept of "mine" and "yours" is huge in our heads. wars are fought over it. people resort to name calling and violence over it. i've been working a long time trying to unlearn it.

so, when it comes to this system of owning words and photos within this website, i don't even agree with the basic premise or wording in the rules and regulations. the system that i would build would be completely different and i know people aren't ready for that kind of system yet. it requires too much responsibility and respect.

i know many people here don't like my ramblings (philosophies). but, that's who i am and i'm not going to change because some people don't appreciate what i have to say. if i'm asked, "what do you think," i'm going to say what i think.

from what i have read above, there isn't much that has been agreed upon and i don't think much can be done to change the rules of licensing and copyright when so many people are stuck within the concept of "mine."


I usually try not to insult people, but can you even read? Everyone in this topic is pro copyleft. We were all saying the same thing; legally, the content is IP. All opinions in this topic were "that's bad." You are far from alone.

I appreciate to hear that you are in the same camp, but please stop trying to be a martyr or a revolutionary.

The problem is, you haven't even touches the subject of CC. I asked a simple question, and you misrepresent the opinion of others while disregarding the question in a Wall of Text.

MW. Please. Tone the hate down.

I don't think mithrilweaver is being intentionally dense. I think he might have trouble understanding exactly what other people are saying because he has his mind already made up. I could be wrong. I often am...

I personally see the side of copyright. Why should you give away your sweat, art, time, money, and effort without getting anything in return? However, I can also see the side of people who want to freely share their IP.

I love when people share my pictures. I DO NOT love when people take credit for my pictures. I have had people use my pictures and tutorials to sell their classes on how to make a certain weave. I have had people use my pictures or designs to sell an article to a magazine. It's not... heartwarming. It hurts. As long as people say, "I found this on M.A.I.L. or Lorraine's Chains", well... I'm happy because they can go to either site and find where it came from. When someone claims my stuff as their own, I have issues with that. I realize my issues my be irrelevant, given the state of sharing on the internet. However, that doesn't allay my fears and hurt feelings.


So, I take it you're copyleft? Wink

CC is perfect when it comes to freely sharing stuff.

I am thinking of adding a CC notice to all My submissions.

Would the BOD Recognise a transferrall of copyright? I would like to transfer My accepted weave submissions to MAIL. It's not really legal in Sweden, but from what I understand, it is in the states?


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 601
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:32 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
I am thinking of adding a CC notice to all My submissions.

I'm interested in what the best way to do this would be. Should all interested in using a CC license mimic the ways lorenzo posted his?

I may very well add a CC license to my images on this site as well. Most of them are find-able elsewhere on the internet under a CC license.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 602
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:42 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Karpeth wrote:
I am thinking of adding a CC notice to all My submissions.

I'm interested in what the best way to do this would be. Should all interested in using a CC license mimic the ways lorenzo posted his?

I may very well add a CC license to my images on this site as well. Most of them are find-able elsewhere on the internet under a CC license.


You should. Those images that you have licenses under CC are legal to take from MAIL under your CC terms. To help people to destinguish between what's specifically licenses to maille and what anyone could submit to mail (under CC terms)


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 601
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:51 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
To help people to destinguish between what's specifically licenses to maille and what anyone could submit to mail (under CC terms)

To clarify: I don't want a different license for a select few images. There are a couple that are uniquely submitted to MAIL, so they simply can't be found under CC elsewhere... because they don't exist anywhere else.

Pretty much any gaps in the things I post publicly online that aren't some sort of CC are when a website updated default values to not auto-CC license it.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 21, 2015 1:21 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Karpeth wrote:
To help people to destinguish between what's specifically licenses to maille and what anyone could submit to mail (under CC terms)

To clarify: I don't want a different license for a select few images. There are a couple that are uniquely submitted to MAIL, so they simply can't be found under CC elsewhere... because they don't exist anywhere else.

Pretty much any gaps in the things I post publicly online that aren't some sort of CC are when a website updated default values to not auto-CC license it.

See, that's the great thing about Creative Commons Licensing. It isn't saying "take all my stuff and post it wherever you want. I don't care." It is specific to the Intellectual Property (IP) it is linked to.

I'm all for making things available to the masses if I choose to. But it has to be my decision, because I'm the copyright holder. NOT the decision of the masses. I (anyone) should be able to choose not to make my IP copyleft. I guess that makes me copymiddle? Razz


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 601
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:47 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

lorraine wrote:
See, that's the great thing about Creative Commons Licensing. It isn't saying "take all my stuff and post it wherever you want. I don't care." It is specific to the Intellectual Property (IP) it is linked to.

I'm all for making things available to the masses if I choose to. But it has to be my decision, because I'm the copyright holder. NOT the decision of the masses. I (anyone) should be able to choose not to make my IP copyleft. I guess that makes me copymiddle? Razz

You are aware that there are a couple flavors for CC licenses, right?
The one lorenzo has on the flower images states that anyone can take it, use it, modify it, re-share it, and sell it - whatever... as long as they give him some [non-hidden] form of attribution.
There are other ones for adding more/less restrictions.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: March 29, 2005
Posts: 500
Submissions: 26
Location: Plumstead, London

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 21, 2015 1:27 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

So in a nut shell what we're saying here is we love sharing with fellow artists but we really REALLY are getting to HATE Walter Mittys?

I can see that. The problem is how would one go after one without impeding the freedom of the other. The vast majority of people would never dream of claiming the work of another mailer.

What are we saying here we (like the military) have a Mitty black list?

https://www.facebook.com/The-Walter-Mitty-Hunters-Club-HQ-501261976579581/timeline/?ref=stream

It's tempting until you get someone gaming the system to rubbish someones reputation. It could be done but your going to need checks and measures and a fair method of redress.

Honestly I can see the problem but as to a solution..... Not sure.

I am concerned that in order to defend our good works we have to impede OUR freedoms. On the plus side I have come up with a collective name for them that won't stamp on the soldiers toes (they own 'Walt' and their a nice bunch of gents.)

Metal Mickey!



http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/344000.html

Because they certainly are taking the piss.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2. Goto page 1, 2  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:07 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
Display posts from previous: