 Ahoy Hoy! I'm Dr. Sumerian, not a real doctor. Today, we are going to talk about how some of the SCP animation channels, though not all, and I think it's really more minority, are not crediting the authors of the works they are adapting properly. Let's get started. So this isn't the first time I've seen this problem, but it is one of the few times where it's actually become somewhat of a public issue, which was actually more, it only became a really big issue because of the way the creator responded to the request for proper attribution. So we're going to go to the events of what day is this? March 9th, 2021. And an author from the SCP Wiki, not the author of the infringed article by the way, which is I think really said something, but somebody who actually has a little bit of reach on Twitter, or at least a little bit, was able to get people to pay attention to this. Gregori Carpin tweeted about a YouTube video from an, let's go over the channel, I've got the tabs opened up, a channel called the Histographic Shrush. I wanted to say Histographic Show because I was thinking Infographic Show, but it's not, it's just Histographics. And let's be clear that this is a completely separate, as far as I can tell, channel. Okay. This is just something new that's come up out of nowhere and this is what they're doing. All right. So this person adapted an SCP called SCP-5175 by Jay Doon. And we are going to go there real quick and open up this article. Yep. Okay. And what's the name of this article? 5175. Deathknife, which is an interesting name, we'll say. Anyway, Deathknife was adapted by Histographics into an animated video. I have not watched the animated video. I have not read the original SCP article and I don't need to to talk about this particular problem. So what happened was, is that the Histographics show put their video up. All right. Without crediting the author, without linking back to the wiki, or talking about the Creative Commons Share Like 3.0 license. All right. Well, technically it's a Creative Commons Share Like attribution 3.0 license. So it's still wrong. Anyway, they've read, they left the attribution part out, which was the whole problem with their anyway. So what has happened? That alone is a is a problem, obviously. But the author found the video and commented and asked for the creator of the video to credit them properly. And the creator of the video deleted the comment. This has led to quite a lot of anger in the SCP community over this. Reasonable. I was going to say reasonable or not, but perfectly reasonable outrage. It's not unheard of or I think unknown for a channel to get the attribution thing wrong. The legal vagaries are difficult to understand for some people and not just for some people for everybody. I don't know every single element myself and I've been involved in the SCP wiki's licensing team for like two years as an enforcer, for lack of a better way to put it, where I went around and like looked to see if people were were following the license or not. However, if the author or literally anyone requests that you credit the original creator, the basic moral, it seems like a basic moral imperative to just be like, you're absolutely right. I screwed up. I will fix it. Why can't people just what can people just apologize, fix the problem and move on? Everyone's going to make a big deal out of it. Anyway, so this has happened and I'm going to go over now. I'm not going to I'm not going to dive into whether they should or shouldn't do it. I'm going to create a video now starting starting from this point where I talk about the bare legal minimum of what you have to do as an SCP adapter on YouTube as a creator of SCP art or as a creator of SCP writings that are not necessarily posted on the wiki itself. Okay, so what do you need to do? The SCP wiki is under a 3.0 attribution share alike creative commons unported license. What does that mean? A creative commons license is a specific recently for lack of better way in the grand scheme of things recent recently. Some of these are quite the idea of it is quite old. But when it comes to copyright law, a lot of the new things like a creative commons license are pretty new in comparison to the idea of having a copyright on something. It's a fairly new concept. The idea is is that once you create a thing, it is under a basic license that everyone should be able to have a basic understanding of and can be redistributed as necessary. If the license allows for that sorts of redistribution, which technically it does, it allows in infinite redistribution of the original work, regardless of the elements included. There are four elements to a creative commons license, regardless of if it's a 1.0 to 4.0, which there are 123 and 4.0 licenses. The SCP wiki though uses a 3.0 license, which is what we're going to talk about here. It is more restrictive than the 4.0 license, which is why they can't convert to a 4.0 license. The 4.0 license doesn't offer as many protections as a 3.0 license. So they have to stick with the more protective one, because the people who have released their works under the 3.0 can't be forced to give up those protections. So what are the four elements? And this is to this is to creators of all types that you need to understand these four elements. We're going to talk first about the two that are included in the sites license and then the two that aren't included in the sites license, which also allow for quite a lot of confusion, especially one of them. The first one that is included is the share alike provision. This is a victim and the reason why I'm covering it first is because it is quite possibly the simplest of all with the share alike provision on the 3.0 license. What that means is that you cannot redistribute, adapt or so on without releasing the new work under the same license as the work you're deriving yours from. So if you do a reading on YouTube or you create art or you create a new tale about an SCP or about a tale that exists on the SCP or any works that are under the 3.0 share like attribution license, you have to release your new work under a creative commons share alike attribution license. That is what share alike means. You can't add in elements like the other two that aren't present, which are by the way specifically the non commercial and no derivatives clauses, which we'll talk about again in a second. You can't add those in. You can't take the attribution or the share alike license parts or license elements away. You have to release it under the exact same license. Okay, that seems simple enough. What does attribution mean? And this is where we can get into some serious quagmire, but I'm going to try and keep it as simple as possible. Attribution at its core means making sure you credit the original work and the original creator. Okay, so here's the other half of this attribution is so often incorrectly done. And people don't realize that an error in applying the creative commons license, a clear error, we should say there's some arguable errors one way or the other, failing to credit someone properly means that you've lost the right to reproduce that work, you personally have lost the right to reproduce that work under the creative commons license, at least under the under the 3.0 under 4.0. If you correct your error within 30 days, you can get back your rights to reproduce that work. But if you put an anim, let's say an animation, we'll use that. Let's say you put an adaptation, an animated adaptation with voice acting and everything else of SCP 049 onto YouTube, and you failed to credit the proper author, you failed a link back. If the author wants, you have now voided your rights to reproduce it and can force you to take down your work. Period. There is no recourse for you. Once you screw it up. That's it. You've lost your rights to reproduce that work under a 3.0 license specifically. As again, 4.0 allows for you to correct your error. Once made aware of it, you have 30 days to fix it and then you can do whatever this guy didn't even do that. He was informed. Hey, you screwed up. Please credit me properly. And then deleted the comment and moved on attribution also can get really complex when we're talking about the SCP wiki because not all SCP wiki works have clear attribution. Well, that's not necessarily true. I think the licensing department has done a pretty good job with it, but it's what's the best way to put this? It's not uniform or universal. Okay. Most even probably 99.9% maybe less than that, but most SCP wiki works. You can look at the history, find out who posted it originally and have an idea of who you should credit properly, although some works have co authors. So that's not even necessarily true there. There are methods that have been created outside of the wiki itself to find out who wrote a thing, of course, not only are co authors an issue, but and this is important because it cover the small percentage that this is covers many of the SCP wiki's most popular works because they are the earliest works were moved from another site to the wiki itself. So the person who posted it was either a bot or a person who literally just moved the article over and isn't the original author. And for some of those for the longest time, the author was not included. Okay. The SCP wiki has begun to add a licensing blurb at the bottom of articles. So if you're adapting something, just scroll down to the bottom, see if you can find a licensing blurb. If you can't look in the history, see who posted first. That's your best option. Because you have to name the author. It's not enough to link back necessarily. And it could well, I should say, it may be enough to link back. So this is where it gets a little complex. What is what is proper attribution in this sense? And I keep saying this is really complicated because it's really complicated. If you link back, the link you're providing gives them the original work with the author's name on it, you should if you can figure out a way to find it, put the author's name in the blurb that you're using to link back as well, as well as saying that it's released, your work is released under a Creative Commons share like attribution license, right? Okay. So once you've done that, you have the author, you link back to it, and you also have to tell what the title of it is. Now for SCPs, this can be easy. While the listing does tell you what the name of an SCP article is, the name of the SCP article is, for SCP 049 is SCP 049. You could call it the plague doctor as well. But either or though they're interchangeable, they're both the same, they're both interchangeable names of it would probably be best if you're going to be as complete as possible to write SCP 049, the plague doctor, probably with a colon in there somewhere, right? That's the full title of it by Gabriel Jade and DJ cactus. I'm using 049 because it's one of the more common adapted pieces on YouTube. And I'm also, I never want to miss an opportunity to remind people that I did voice acting in that article. The thing is, there are also two more elements. And these are the ones that get people hung up even more, I think, than the attribution problem. One is no derivatives. The SV Wiki doesn't have this element, obviously, because you can still create derivative works of it. You can create an animated YouTube video, you can create artwork of it, you can write an SCP that doesn't go on the SCP Wiki as long as you release them all under the proper licensing. So no derivatives doesn't exist. The last one is probably the one that is most often confused because people will say creative commons means you can't make money on an SCP work. This is categorically untrue, because the SCP Wiki does not include the non commercial clause, which is the one that says you can't create, you can't make money off of derived works created from this content. Period. It's not included. You can make as much money as you want, but also under the understanding that you can't really protect it from stealing as long as they use, by the way, and this is important, you can't protect it from stealing as long as people follow the license properly. But very rarely, very rarely, a company would do this the right way, but only very rarely do the people that steal works like that and make money off of it. Do they actually credit properly? If you can prove that they didn't credit you properly in the beginning, their rights are revoked. And you can say, sorry, your game is no longer publishable because you use content from my thing. And because you violated the license, you no longer have permission to use it. And I will not re grant that permission. That's an entirely plausible sequence of events that people forget can happen. Additionally, we're going to talk about this because there are on the SCP Wiki a new little sort of licensing blurb that people have put on. I talked about this slightly earlier. And I'm going to use Gregory Carpens article just to give him a little bit of a bump since he's the one that tweeted about it on Twitter. And drew my attention to this problem due to the community's attention to this particular problem. I'm going to read it exactly. It's SCP 3809 by Gregory Carpin from the SCP Wiki source. HTTP colon forward slash forward slash SCP dash wiki dot wiki dot com forward slash SCP 3809 period licensed under CC by essay that's creative commons share alike attribution period. Technically, it's attribution share like because by be wise essay, but we're not going to go there. You can also look on the licensing guide on the SCP Wiki if you're really still confused somehow, though I feel like I have simplified this down as much as it can be simplified down. Because it's not very simple thing that's happening here. And as I was talking about earlier, I don't know if I dived into this enough. So when I switched over to doing commentary and criticism over actual adaptations, right? What I had done at that point is basically removed some of the necessary requirements for crediting. If I talk about SCP 049 without quoting from the article without say necessarily showing images of SCP 049, although I don't think I ever do that, or at least not showing image or showing images and enough to give context to criticism, I'm giving or reading enough of the text to give context with criticism I'm giving. That is almost textbook definition of fair use. However, fair use can be kind of a gotcha when it comes to this because just because you think something is fair use doesn't mean it is the only person who gets to make that decision is a judge, which means if you claim something is fair use what you're essentially saying and I've said this before in previous videos is I'm willing to defend this claim in court. You're not saying it's mine and nobody can touch me. You're saying I am willing to go to court to defend this. So everybody should probably like dial back on the fair use claims. And personally, because the SCP wiki's license is so open, and it's not as restrictive as I'm making it sound by talking about how complicated and talking about restrictions. It's not that complicated. It's not super restrictive. It's very open. So even when I'm doing something in fair use, I usually link back to the original article. I don't always think I put the name of the person on it. But I do link back and I think if anyone asked me, like, if I'm doing critique of SCP o 49 and cactus or Gabriel Jade were to contact me and say, Hey, can you put my name in there as well? I would do that because why wouldn't I? Anyway, that's it. Thank you very much for watching. If you enjoyed the video, please hit the subscribe button and the notification bell next to that so you're notified when I upload new videos. And then head on over to patreon.com forward slash the Samarian and pledge at any level like everybody here on the screen already has, including Dr. J redacted and synderiki who both pledged $100. It's nice to know that I'm not alone out here and I will see you all again on Tuesday.