I will be transferring the position of Master Administrator to Elogee Fishtruck as they are the current Image Czar.

TSATPWTCOTTTADC came into 34 to tell us about this. There's just a link to the wiki at the bottom of the description.

No mention of CC from what I can see. (In description or FAQ)

Edit: Fix link

<Rimple> Hey guys. IDK who's on licencing, but this page seems to just rip the text of entire SCPs as posts without attribution https://www.facebook.com/SpecialContainmentProtocol/

Basic RP page that does both in-character original posts and copied-over SCPs from the wiki. They do list the wiki url on their "About" section, but no CC declaration/no attribution on copied-over posts/nothing explicitly indicating that they're unofficial. It's a bit late here rn, but I think I'll be able to shoot them a message within the next day or so.

https://www.amazon.de/dp/B01NADIOQ5/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_M9rNAb9V5JD3H (in fact; multiple items by this vendor.

There is likely more I've not been sent- I'll update this if/when I find it.

I'm the Ambassador of the German branch and I would like to ask what license YouTube videos with SCP-content have to be under and why.

Especially readings of SCPs and SCP tales. According to my information, readings are to be published under the YouTube-CC license. Though there are some problems with it and some questions.

First of all, the YT-CC-License is CC BY 3.0, which, as far as I understand the CC compatibility info, is not compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. In the RU-Incident you said the license of SCP-content can not be changed under any circumstances. Wouldn't that mean that there either may not be SCP-content on YT at all, as it doesn't provide a compatible license, OR that it can be published under any license, as the license info can be specified in the description?

Second, such a video contains other things, like music, an actual video, a title, the readers voice etc. so it is a mixed work and not all parts are necessarily SCP-related. The SCP is only a part of it. And we can publish SCPs under CC BY-SA 3.0 containing work (e.g. images) under another license. So the question some YouTubers may ask is, why can't they do the same?

The actual problem some YouTubers have with this license is theft. Some are constantly filing take-down-requests because some users steal the title, some steal samples, some release the whole video under their flag etc.
Some are using images or music they have bought, that are part of the video though under another license or copyrighted. Putting the whole video under a CC license would violate those copyrights, wouldn't it?

tl;dr: Do SCP-readings on YouTube have to be under the YT-CC-license and why, or may they be released under any license and be attributed accordingly?

Also could you please explain in a few words why and how the CC license is applicable outside the US, for those who deem it invalid e.g. in Germany?

Followed some links and found the guy's reddit account (which is very active). Sent the following message:

Ahoy hoy! I'm from the licensing team on the SCP Wiki. I noticed you have several games available with SCP Content. Specifically the three games listed here: https://nmkd.itch.io/

First of all, looks like fun. But I also noticed the pages don't include proper licensing information for the works. All SCP related content is under a Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution/Share-Alike license.

This means that derivative works (like games) must be under the same license with the same terms. It also means you need to credit the original author of the works (SCP-3008 for instance has an author named "Mortos"). You also need to link back to the originating articles (the SCP-3008 page would work for that game, as an example) as part of this attribution.

None of this affects you elsewise. Just let me know when you've brought your products into compliance and I'll give them a look to make sure everything's up to snuff and put this to bed.

Thanks for your time!

Will post again when I get a response. If I don't get a solution then I'll follow up on solutions.

Before we even start thinking about that, I'd like a verification that this project is legal in matters of licensing. I can't see licensing information on their website, their Twitter and their Instagram. Though there is some in the info-section on their Facebook profile and the developer promises that licensing information will be in the manual.

The user who contacted me is Sukdolakus7.

XenoSynthesis

E: For the record, this was slightly off base with proper image enforcement, I failed to give the author 48 hours to seek permission before removal.

the other designs in this "SCPReadings" store are all fine, tho lacking in CC declaration.

I'll see if I can get around to email them any time soon, tho with exam stuffs coming up it very likely won't happen until end of this week, alas.

Now, normally we wouldn't bother, but he's apparently selling alternate versions of this while unattributed…

AND

Invalidly threatening filing DMCAs, against similar maps and content. Which is wrong. And not something he's able to do, as it involves claiming SCP content is his, or that we have specifically also authorized him. Also, illegal. Perjury.

Discussion with the creator is ongoing done.

eta: Latter link has since been updated to remove DMCA language, see final post

As you all know, there's an advertisement shown under every SCP-Wiki page. This ad is consistent with the site style, made to look like a menu. No matter what option is clicked, it opens a doorway page that also uses Foundation style, complete with the colors and the logo.
The ads kinda kill the reading experience, but that's not the actual problem. Two out of five links I clicked have prompted me to install questionable browser addons, but that's not the problem either. There are two problems, actually.
First off, the doorway page uses the Foundation style without mentioning the license requirements in any way.
Second, the ads are displayed on any page, including pages containing images not licensed for commercial usage. Ads generate revenue, which in itself is commercial usage and a clean violation of the license requirements.
Ads can be controlled in the admin panel, provided the Master Administrator has a paid Wikidot account (which is true in your case).

This is a great opportunity for you to demonstrate your adherence to the licensing principles. Please work with us to resolve this issue in a peaceful and amicable way.

I know this isn't quite how we discussed we wanted to do things moving forward but I figured it would be important to jump on it.

There are several plagiarized groups of interest, concepts, and terms on their site, as well as at least one specific page from our own SCP catalogue that has been copied near-entirely and word-for-word, from what I see.

For instance, compare this page, "their" "ACP-121, The Videogame" to our own SCP-1070.

There will be a takedown demand filed later this afternoon.

EC poked at them through our Twitter account with a link to our licensing guide and a request for proper attribution.

Then in #site17:

(have removed spurious chat threads from the logs)

This was around 10:00 MDT. Hope I'm not overstepping my bounds here, just posting my chat logs to make sure it's recorded.

The following is a problem we rarely encounter, and when we do, most of the time we can resolve it on our own. In this case your help would be really useful, or some advisory at least.

Recently we found out about a person who exploits SCP Foundation materials commercially, violating the CC license - the SCP Wiki commercial license as well as the Russian Wiki non-commercial license. Simply put, he charges a fee to voice translated SCP Wiki articles, as well as Russian-authored articles, and to create visuals for such audibles. According to the data we've acquired from social network users, this person has been doing it for quite a long time; a price list exists for his services. The only attribution made amounts to a link to the Russian site, or to the article in question. In both cases this does not comply with CC license requirements.

As far as we understand the licensing, the only way of using the materials in a commercial fashion is voicing English articles in English, along with a link to the source page, a mention of its author, and a disclaimer or note stating that the article is published under the according license. Every other commercial usage of this sort is illegal and violates copyright. Granted, if this person would translate the articles on his own, without using any materials we've published, that would have been acceptable, provided every other CC license requirement was met.

As for Russian-authored articles and translated articles, Russian Civil Codex, part 4, article 1260, paragraph 1, states the following: "The translator, as well as the author of another derivative work (adaptation, cinematization, music arrangement, stage version or other similar work) has the copyright, accordingly, to the translation or other derivative work based on another (original) work, that they authored." In other words, translated SCP Wiki articles are protected by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 used in the Russian branch, which makes commercial usage of the translations inadmissible. Same goes for original Russian articles.

We need your help with this problem. We address you mainly because a department for this kind of problems exists in your site, and because you have the experience. Your advice in resolving this situation will likely help us handle it with minimal reputational losses and help developing international relations between our wikis.

Respectfully yours,
Russian SCP branch administrative staff.