Visocacas wrote: ↑15 Nov 2020 18:48
Salmoneus wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020 23:35
...it's still extremely tasteless to steal someone else's work without their permission.
Let me reset the tone of this discussion so it doesn't escalate. I realize now that I've made etiquette errors and assumptions about the legality of modifying another person's work. I want to assure everyone that I'm acting in good faith. Someone who intends to 'steal' content doesn't preface it by acknowledging the original author(s), linking directly to its source, and informing the original author and community, while not monetizing or even identifying themselves.
Fair enough. Sorry if 'steal' was too harsh a word.
I thought citing the author and linking to the source would be enough. I thought repackaging freely available content on an equally free, non-monetized platform wouldn't have legal concerns. I even thought Clawgrip might be flattered that someone would pour a lot of time and effort into making their great guide even better so that it may be exposed to wider audiences and promote awareness and skill in this hobby.
To be clear, citing and linking is a good thing - it means that this isn't plagiarism. But I think it's still at least morally, and potentially legally, copyright infringement (I am not a lawyer, and I don't know where the dividing line is between infringement and 'fair use' - but I think it must be at least questionable).
For what it's worth, I agree that this should be flattering to Clawgrip; I'd find it flattering in their position. I'd also probably give permission for it in their position. But the point is that that has to be up to Clawgrip, not to anybody else.
[for clarity: I was slightly annoyed you didn't ask my permission too, as a matter of tact. However, I don't think that my contribution was substantial or specific enough to merit protection - so while I think it would have been better for you to ask me first (politer, more tactful, classier), I don't think asking me first was morally required, or that I should have any moral right to prevent you from quoting/paraphrasing me in this way.]
Now I realize that I should have thought more carefully about these assumptions. And I definitely should have contacted Clawgrip before embarking on this project.
I have a lot of respect and gratitude to Clawgrip for creating this extremely helpful free resource. I don't want to get on anyone's bad side for making blunders. My intention was for this project to be a gift to the conlanging/conscripting community, and my hope was that it would be received positively by fellow creative linguistics geeks.
And my intention is not to seek to dissuade enthusiastic people from creating resources. It's just that these issues of seeking consent are common mistakes that people (particularly younger people and newcomers, I think) often make, and I think it's important to set these boundaries when it happens.
So I ask that I be given the benefit of the doubt and treated as someone acting in good faith despite blunders I might have committed. Let's work together to resolve any unintended problems that this might present.
For what it's worth, if Clawgrip doesn't give you their permission, but you want to present a version of the guide anyway, I think the priority would be replacing his graphics with your own. I've not looked at the text side-by-side, but in general it's much easier to rewrite text, maintaining the general principles while becoming more independent in the details, to move from 'wrong' to 'grey area', and 'grey area' to 'OK'; but using specific images that someone else has created is a red line for a number of reasons.
[a) they take a disproportionate amount of time to create; b) they're more specific and creative; and c) it's easier to separate them conceptually as works in their own right, so that even when fair use applies to the document as a whole it may not apply to the use of the images as works in their own right.]
But again, to be clear, I'm not a lawyer.
(Salmoneus I've corrected the spelling of your username.)