Unclaimed SCPs
So at this point, I put forward that any currently unclaimed SCPs be put under stewardship of the site/Staff, no matter what 'evidence' someone might be able to come up with. Thoughts?
Admin, SCP Wiki
Unclaimed SCPs
Forum
» Media & Wiki Management / Site Presentation & Navigation
» Unclaimed SCPs
Seconded, for the reasons I mentioned previously.
Thirding.
Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.
I'm against it, for reasons mentioned before.
From the thread on Scotron:
We have nothing if not our principles. From what I've read, there is no way that we can prove that Scroton is the original author, but then again, there's no way we can prove he's NOT either.
But, he has basically put a good deal of "proof" including logs, logging into older things from other sites.
Not only that, but we also stand to lose a good deal of faith from the community at large.
As such, let him have the articles. If he wants to revise, revert and reclaim them, let him. Provide good advice, criticism, talk to him, but under no circumstances are we to take them from him. That's dick move territory, and that's us turning into a site of proper circlejerk elitist scum.
Scroton yes, as he may be the author yet, and he still deserves to be treated with respect until we prove that he's malicious, not merely failing as a writer.
But even just looking at the thread, several people have stated that taking an author's right to their creation is something that will not be tolerated, and that's something I agree with. Some people, maybe vocal, maybe not, will be much less likely to write articles if they think we will not honor their right of ownership.
It reflects badly on us, and rightfully so if we go through with it.
While this statement can be true, it does allow for a large level of grey area.
How much effort is some? How much time should elapse? If someone wrote something some time ago, at what point does it stop becoming theirs? If rewritten, how much of the original concept still belongs to them?
These are all questions that are very difficult to answer, especially with generalized rules. Even with case by case rules of context, this is still going to be something that is very difficult to judge.
I don't particularly have an answer for this statement, but I will say that unless a creator disavows their work, or attempts to vandalize or destroy it out of malice, it is theirs, without question. As for changes to the article in their absence, that's not their fault, nor should they be punished for it.
This where Kain's contributions to the discussion.
"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato
I still don't think Scroton is the original author. It just doesn't make any sense. He loses track of us for 4 years, and just happens to show up with 'evidence' that he's the 'real author?'
*shrug*
I just think we need to head this shit off before someone comes in claiming to be the author of 173, and all this site should belong to him.
Admin, SCP Wiki
Well, we've already got the "author" of 173 potentially identified (We think? Whatever.)
And since 173 was posted, its copyright has not been enforced, and the author apparently approved of the original derivative works as they appeared on /X/, we can make all the derivative works we want. The original author can still fuck up 173 if they want, though.
"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato
Actually… I'm glad this was brought up.
I just think we need to head this shit off before someone comes in claiming to be the author of 173, and all this site should belong to him.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm 99.999% certain from conversations with Real Life Lawyers (regarding novel/script stuff, not our wiki) that since 173's copyright hasn't been enforced, and the author apparently knew and approved of the derivative works (either if that dude was for real, or via their approval of the creepypasta on /x/ inspired by it), copyright cannot be enforced. Some authors have died poor because of this.
So no, AFAIK, the author of 173 cannot claim the site as their own.
Anyone who IS, in fact, a real laywer, feel free to chime in.
Count me as against it per Kain's reasons, but I won't complain too hard if this goes through, per Sorts' reasoning (sigh).
Voting along with Kain due to extreme snarls involved. A good idea, but unrealistic to put in to action, at least at this point.
Primarily because we'd be bending our morals a little further than we're comfortable with. As much as I'd like to establish a protectorate for some of these articles, there's not much we can do—from the standpoint that we've taken concerning author's ultimate control over their work—the morally justify this clause.
As it stands, I'll keep a copy of 579 in my sandbox. And I might even steal the idea wholesale for an SCP in he sinks it. But it's unfortunately his right to sink it as the original author.
In the future, we need to continue asking for proof of authorship, etc. when these people show up, but I think if they've given us enough data, then we don't have much of a choice here. It's their property.
"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato
Yeah, no, I totally understand the morality of both sides here. I understand that it looks kind of sketchy, but I really think that once someone completely loses contact with their work for years and suddenly wants to recover control (instead of just writing something new and establishing themselves that way), the SS of the site are the ones who had been taking care of upkeep for the article, and someone's claims that they wrote it years ago, while not invalid, don't override the fact that they abandoned their work. That's my piece.
Also, in terms of the question of "who would go to this much trouble to fake authorship", I never underestimate the determination of a thorough troll. Not making an accusation against Scroton or anyone else, just pointing it out.
/forum/t-532302/unclaimed-scps#post-