 So, some of you might have missed it, but this whole last week, the Wiki was playing musical chairs with the image for SCP-106, and they finally settled on something, but you might be asking yourself, why is the image changing at all? Well, to put it simply, SCP-106's image wasn't owned by the author of the article, and the author didn't seek permission to use it from the original owner, in fact no one can even find the original owner. And that means it's in violation of the site's images policy. Now, site staff have known about this problem, which applies to like 2,000 other images on the site for a while, but they're only really now getting around to actually trying to fix it, so there's a contest announced on Reddit for images to replace the old SCP-106 image, and they got a few entries, a lot of them are really good, but actually choosing a winner took forever because they wanted the original author to choose the replacement for them, but that author never really got around to doing it, and then once staff decided to move on without him, the rollout of the fix was actually kind of a mess. The winner of the contest to replace the 106 image, which was non-compliant, was itself non-compliant with the images policy, and they didn't realize it until after they'd already changed it, and then they replaced it with the runner-up, which was compliant and was really good art, but didn't really fit the aesthetic of the site, and it just didn't seem realistic, it seemed like art, it was good art, but it seemed like art, and finally I think like maybe four or five days ago, because I wrote this a little while back and I haven't been keeping up with the exact days, but it's been replaced with what I hope will be a final change. The image they chose fits the tone of the work, it looks about as realistic as such an image could be, and as far as I know is completely compliant with the site's license and the images policy, so at the very least 106 is settled, but we should talk a little bit about why I changed it in the first place, but first of all I don't think I need to explain to a bunch of writers what plagiarism is, since the idea of somebody lifting a couple of paragraphs from something you wrote and passing it off as their own work would probably rightfully annoy or anger you. The issue with this is that a lot of writers don't treat images the same way, and they really should, especially since legally there's barely any difference between those two things. I'm going to assume the best of people and think that the people who are stealing these images and using them aren't doing it to try and pass it off as their own. They just assume you know that this is an image they found off of the internet somewhere, but it really doesn't matter. If you included a couple of paragraphs of Harry Potter in your SCP, you'd probably still run into problems, I mean obviously. So that's the equivalence really, I mean using a copyrighted image as the exact same problem as using a copyrighted piece of text. Now I want to talk a little bit about the images policy on the site. I think this is the kind of thing that probably deserves its own video, but this is related to the 106 thing and I just want to make sure you understand what's going on. A disclaimer though, I am not a lawyer and I don't even work in a field that is like lawyer-adjacent. I do not present any of this information as legal advice and you should only treat my talking about what you can and can't do in regards to site rules as solid advice and it's just advice. I am not site staff anymore even though I worked on the images team and the licensing team. I'm not currently site staff so things can change, but the site's image policy currently is about avoiding fights entirely. What are essentially copyright trolls come along periodically and find images that are owned by somebody, contact the owner and get them to sue for $10,000, something small. If you put a wide enough net out there and get enough people suing for $10,000, you get a bunch of people who are willing to settle so they don't have to go to court. But the administration of the SCP Wiki couldn't pay anything, probably. $1,000 would be too much for them and $10,000 would probably bankrupt more than half of them. They're not exactly going to fight hard for a picture of Pikachu that you insist is being used under a fair use doctrine. And by the way, fair use is really not something you should bother arguing about when it comes to SCPs especially because fair use is almost always decided in courts. If you claim not always, there's some clear cut versions of fair use, but even a clear cut and perfectly defined version of fair use can still get you sued, so just claiming fair use doesn't protect you from anything. What it is essentially doing is saying that if you say something is fair use, you're daring a copyright holder to send you a cease and desist letter and then when you fight it, to sue you. So if you don't understand fair use at all, probably don't try to just use it as a magic word to avoid getting in trouble, it's not going to work for you. The SCP Wiki probably isn't going to go out on a limb for vague and possibly uncertain interpretations of fair use, but it's clear fair use, like for educational purposes and for critique and it's a small clip or a small snippet or whatever. It's a bit complicated. Fair use is complicated. And that's when it's almost always only decided in courts. If you can't afford a lawyer and you're not sure, don't use fair use as a defense. But the SCP Wiki has a continuing policy of removing any unattributed images that do not adhere to the images policy. So an image that does adhere to the policy would be one of the following. And like I said, this is the kind of thing that probably deserves its own video. I'm just going to go over the basics, but an image that is owned and copyrighted, but which you have permission and this is written and provable permission from the owner of that copyright to use the image. And by the way, the owner can be you in that instance. And you post that permission on the discussion page, along with the source or an image that is under a Creative Commons license. And that Creative Commons license does not contain a no derivatives or non-commercial clause. And you post a link to the images source with licensing information that proves it is under such a license. This is the kind of thing where you go into Wikimedia Commons. You find the actual page where the source of the images that, you know, explains everything. And this is where I found this image. This is proof of its Creative Commons license. This is proof that I can use it or an image that is entered into the public domain and to which you can link a source that proves it is entered into the public domain. So every image that has been published on or prior to 1923 or any work that is literally anything has entered into the public domain. In the US, every country has its own copyright law. Usually US law is the most restrictive, not always. So usually that's the standard that people consider things through. But anything prior to that that you can prove is made prior to that would be able to be used. So if you follow those rules, you shouldn't run into any problems. And I can go into this in more detail in a video of its own. And I probably will, as I've said a few times now. But if you want to learn more about the Creative Commons license, definitely look up that information yourself. And I'll make sure to link to the video that actually explains the Creative Commons license and the images policy on the SAP Wiki when I make it in the description of this video. So if you're watching this much later, that link will be there. And if it's not there, you'll, you know, I'll have a little empty spot that says this is where the link goes when I get it. So anyway, thank you very much for watching. I'll see you in the next video.