GuildWiki talk:Wikia Move/BY-NC-SA vs Site advertisements

Some information
http://memory-alplha.org - A Star Trek wiki that has been hosted on Wikia for a while. They are CC NC 2.5, but they have Google ads. While this does not prove that it's ok to have site adverts on a Non-Commercial wiki, it is probably safe to assume other people have thought about suing Wikia for putting ads on a Non-Commercial wiki but that Wikia hasn't gotten into legal trouble yet. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:37, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
 * But the question is, is it ok to have ad's as long as they are used to pay for server costs and sever costs only, with extra money going into a GWiki bank account in case we need it? Or is there simply to be no money gained no matter what? The Imperialist 18:44, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think, it's the ads that matter, as ads were there before (with other words: there are ads on GuildWiki right NOW). It's the extra money. --[[Image:Warrior's_Endurance.jpg|18px]] numma_cway 10:23, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Licence Clause
I'm not a lawyer but the relevant clause of the licence appears to be:
 * "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."

No idea what that all means, could sit and debate it, but really if were worried, it should be a question put to CC []. --Nela 06:27, 16 September 2007 (CDT)


 * I did ask the CC people, they gave this unhelpful response:

From: nathan@creativecommons.org Unfortunately the non-commercial clause is not clear with respect to advertising, and Creative Commons can not offer legal opinions or advice. You can find some draft guidelines we developed with the input of the community at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC. If you believe your licensed content has been used in an infringing manner, you may wish to consult legal counsel. Nathan
 * &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.184.35.112 (contribs).
 * In my opinion GuildWiki could be hosted by wikia, and wikia could include ads, but only if GuildWiki was a separate entity operating as a client receiving Wikia's hosting services rather than part of Wikia itself, however I am not a legal expert. -- Gordon Ecker 04:25, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Is this the related situation, or are the ads not prominently connected enough?
 * "(3) Is the NC-licensed work being used in connection with advertisements for third party products or services where the NC-licensed work is the primary draw or a is substantial amount, both qualitatively and quantitatively? For example, does a podcast consisting solely of CC BY-NC-SA licensed music have ads for a record store at the start and end of the podcast.


 * (i) Yes - license violation; this is not a noncommercial use. " from [] - Merengue 17:46, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

One idea
If:
 * 1) Wikia keeps track of how much money they made from ads on GuildWiki separate from their other income
 * 2) Wikia deduct any operational costs exclusively associated with GuildWiki (server maintainence, bandwidth etc) from that amount
 * 3) Wikia deduct a prorated amount of overall-operational costs (costs incurred that are not exclusively used by GuildWiki) according to how much ad revenue is from GuildWiki vs the rest of Wikia
 * 4) Wikia take the remaining amount (if non-negative), and use it for the GuildWiki community (usage decided by community, perhaps for raffle prizes such as gaming keyboards, copies of GW2 etc; raffles run and managed by the community of course)

Would people feel this to be acceptable? This way, even though Wikia may be a commercial company, but the ad revenue would never be Wikia's "commercial profit".

If you want to argue that "Since Wikia is a commercial company, any advertisement income breaks NC", then your argument would also prohibit any commercial entity to use NC content to raise money for non-profits, since you don't care how the money end up being used.

Now, why *might* the Wikia people not reject this idea outright (seeing they won't make any profit)
 * 1) They have a chance to salvage good will from at least a portion of the current vocal opposition in the community
 * 2) The more good will they salvage, the more they can strengthen their brand name
 * 3) A more powerful brand name may attract more viewers and editors to the other wikis of theirs, where they get to keep the ad revenue

Please don't criticize the "Why Wikia might not reject this idea" portion. I just want to hear whether you guys would find the terms acceptable. Assume there will be a mechanism to ensure the transparency of the finances via an objective third party. Also keep in mind that at the end of #4, the number may or may not be positive. If it's negative, the community gets nothing. Also, this is directed at the "Advertisements on an NC content site" issue. Other issues should be considered independently (so assume they'd be resolved to satisfaction too, for the purpose of this discussion).

Fire away. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:12, 18 September 2007 (CDT)


 * IF we had to settle with a full "loss" to Wikia (no forking, no legal grounds, nothing), then that's the way I would want to go about it. Making the defeated opposition happy is always good PR and like you say, it may actually be some small benefit/consolation, enough to perhaps salvage some of the userbase that has rejected Wikia or even GuildWiki because of all this. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:17, 18 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Um, how about "Yes fork, No legal grounds"? Wikia will definitely let us fork.  My above idea is aimed at resolving legal issues, since Wikia only takes money needed for operation costs, and the rest of the money (if any left) goes to the community.  Wikia would end up hosting GuildWiki for us without taking any monetary profits.  Would you be happy in a "Yes fork, No legal grounds" scenario or would you rather stay with an independent fork? -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 01:40, 18 September 2007 (CDT)


 * I was speaking in terms of feasibility, as we would still need to work on financing and other stuff before even considering that possibility. For me, it really depends on what Wikia does next to try and "resolve our issues". If they continue to dodge questions and "ride us out" until no-one can do anything anymore (or people stop caring) then I can't morally justify myself continuing to be an editor, even for GuildWiki...and in that case I would strongly aim for independence, come what may. Or move to GWW...any place that I can edit in peace, without moral and ethical clouds hanging over my head, not to mention legal ones. The ball is in Gil's court, now. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:51, 18 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, my point is, will the above arrangement make you feel you can edit in peace without moral/ethical clouds with respect to the "we have NC content but also having advertisements here" issue? I want to deal with each individual issue separately, so for the purpose of this discussion, assume the "Wikia paying Gravewit" issue will be dealt with to your satisfaction (ideas for resolution of that topic will be treated in its own respective subpage).  I'm almost feeling like you are dodging my question here.  Whether the above arrangement still does not make you feel comfortable having advertisements on an NC site is the focus here (assuming arrangements for forking to a different host can all be worked out also). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 02:15, 18 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Maybe using too many words causes them to lose meaning; I'll just say "Yes". If you're going to do ads, that seems a fair and equitable way to go about it. Short of cutting ads completely (which you mentioned as the other alternative) I think that is about as close as you can get to still upholding "the spirit of the law/license". [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:22, 18 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Not only do I think Wikia will not accept that (this is one of THE most successful wikis EVER), but I am not about to talk about "moving forward" until the "past" is resolved. I am still stuck at Gravewit, personally, and would like everyone to stay "stuck" there until he is held accountable for what he has done. If he is not, then when GW2 comes out, another Phil (or perhaps even the same Phil) will do the same heist to another bunch of players as well as countless others MMORPGSs being released weekly.
 * No, PanSola. I refuse to move forward until we've settled the scores of the past. There's too much at stake here for online communities in general. I would think your own principles would dictate the same instead of trying to gloss over what happened and just look forward. In fact, I'd like to know your own views on the matter. Don't you feel scammed? Cheated? Don't you see the threat this poses to the trust average users have in such online communities. I mean, imagine a guy who contributed to THIS wiki and FFX both at the same time. He's probably taken a vow never ever to use the "edit" button on a wiki again. Does that not bother you, one bit? --Karlos 13:51, 19 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Not to interrupt the questions posed to PanSola by Karlos, but I've been skimming here and there and have to add something. There is so much to take in that it is amazing and I'm trying to soak it all in, in such little time, but didn't PanSola mention he is an intern for Wikia? Why would he feel cheated or scammed when adding GWiki will help his foothold in the company considering he has put plenty of time into GWiki himself?
 * I know I would be diplomatic and try to help to extinguish the fire around here and maybe an internship could actually turn into a paying gig. With almost everyone in the world, it's always about looking for ways to further yourself, unfortunately sometimes at the expense of others. &mdash; Gares 14:14, 19 September 2007 (CDT)