GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.
This link comes up on editing pages, should the
All content is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa license, unless otherwise noted. All other information, art, skill images, are Copyright to their original creators, NCSoft, or ArenaNet.
- Ping! Skuld asks a good question, we should have something here. --Karlos 17:34, 20 October 2005 (EST)
- That's the license that I chose for the site on it's creation, yep. For some reason the logo isn't showing up since the upgrade. Have to fix that. Gravewit 17:55, 20 October 2005 (EST)
There's a newer version of the Creative Commons license -- the hyperlink should link to v2.5 instead of v2.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ Also, there should be a (c) after the word Copyright in the second sentence: "... are Copyright (c) to their original..." Banaticus 08:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think we'd have to note work edited AFTER we change the note is 2.5, since as we're not the copyright holders we can't relicense things without changing them. --Fyren 16:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Mention NCSoft copyrights and trademarks.[edit | edit source]
Copyrights violation[edit | edit source]
A lot of pages about Gwen PvE skills were stolen from the official wiki. Just a few example :
Basically, nearly everything in the last 6 boxes of this page is stolen. Isn't it a copyrights violation? What tag should I put on those pages to alert Guildwiki administrators and let them solve this problem? 184.108.40.206 09:57, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Why is this page protected?[edit | edit source]
This makes me feel like a second-class editor. Please add the following to the Copyright page (you can delete the comment here). --◄mendel► 06:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyright in ArenaNet material[edit | edit source]
The use of material from the game and ArenaNet's Fansite Kit is governed by the following terms.
Source: http://www.guildwars.com/support/legal/copyright-info.php , 06:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Source: http://www.guildwars.com/support/legal/termsofuse.php , 06:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have no clue why this page is protected, there's no entry in the log. Maybe it's a MediaWiki default? I personally don't see any reason to leave it protected, but I would appreciate input from other admins, especially anyone who might know more about the situation. —Dr Ishmael 17:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can I put ArenaNet or Guild Wars downloads on my web site?
- Yes, you may. We allow the non-commercial mirroring of our downloadable Content, such as images, videos, demos, etc., as long as the content is not altered in any way. This permission may be rescinded at any time at the discretion of ArenaNet.
- Are there any legal notices and disclaimers that I need to have on my site when talking about your products?
- Yes. You must include all copyright, trademark and other notices as appropriate. The following are the appropriate trademark designations:
- Guild Wars™ is a trademark of NCsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
- ©2006 ArenaNet, Inc. All rights reserved. ArenaNet, Arena.Net and the ArenaNet logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCsoft Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries.
--◄mendel► 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I unprotected the page for you, since no one else seems to care. —Dr Ishmael 16:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Images[edit | edit source]→ moved from Talk:Infernal Siege Wurm
Are we allowed to use images from GWW? I know this monster doesent have an image on any, just wondered :P. Supervillain-ToX 00:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Depends on the license. I usually state the source (i.e. copy the URL of the image) and select a license that corresponds to the license there, using the "screenshot" license for ANet material for the time being. --◄mendel► 00:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Licensing issues[edit | edit source]
I just noticed this once-GFDL licensed wiki has chosen to move to CC-BY-NC-SA, which is a wise choice. I'm assuming this is since GFDL 1.3 added section 11 that allows this to happen, but there's one flaw. The license it got compatibility with wasn't CC-BY-NC-SA, it was CC-BY-SA (note the lack of non-commercial). As such, the once GFDL-licensed stuff is currently being illegally used as it is not compatible with the new license. Now, this could be fixed by simply removing the NC-part of the current license, but that would illegalize the content added after the license change instead, since CC-BY-NC-SA is a stricter license and thus not compatible with CC-BY-SA. I realize I'm basically saying the wiki will contain illegal content either way, but it's important enough to be mentioned either way. — 220.127.116.11 22:29, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
- This wiki was always CC-BY-NC-SA. I think. — Balistic 23:51, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
updated?[edit | edit source]
- Per Fyren's comment at the top of this page re: 2.5, you can't legally change the license without approval from all rights holders (contributors), so basically it's not gonna happen. 18.104.22.168 21:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Right. That's not an upgrade in the way that you can download a program upgrade and install it over the old program - legally, it's a completely different license. —Dr Ishmael 06:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)