Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Woods on Thursday May 15 2014, @11:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the content-of-this-article-is-SFW dept.

In the beginning, pop culture wiki TV Tropes licensed its content with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license for free content.

When Google pulled out its AdSense revenue because of... let's call it NSFW fan fiction, TV Tropes changed its guidelines to forbid tropes about mature content. In response to this move, two forks were eventually created. The admins disliked this move so much that they changed its license notice to the Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike version, despite their site not having requested copyright rights from their users. Only later they added a clause to their Terms of use page requiring all contributors to grant the site irrevocable, exclusive ownership of their edits.

I suppose the morale of the story is, if you contributed to TV Tropes before summer 2012, you should know they're distributing your content under a license that you didn't give them permission to use.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Nerdanel on Friday May 16 2014, @09:16AM

    by Nerdanel (3363) on Friday May 16 2014, @09:16AM (#44138) Journal

    I was into TV Tropes at first, when it was new, but I came to really dislike the place.

    "You are not allowed to be anything other than family-friendly. We should have been strictly family-friendly in the first place, but those depraved people editing this wiki and adding porn tropes took us by surprise. We regret not having taking action immediately. Everything must be appropriate for five-year-olds to read. Adult-only content is immoral and we would ban it from everywhere if we could, or at least keep it from anywhere a five-year-old could possibly find it, such as the Internet."

    "You are not allowed to reference any work that even remotely references pedophilia, even in a non-approving, non-porn way, but we'll make Lolita an exception because it'd be ridiculous if we banned Lolita. This policy will be enforced by a small, closed group of the administrator's friends who "know it when they see it" and are totally not arbitrary. There are no appeals or room for discussion." (As an aside, I haven't checked if they have removed, say, Shigofumi. That one, for example, falls afoul of the letter of their rules despite its clear artistic merits, but also isn't the sort of story where that's obvious from the outset. Shigofumi is such a good example of the failures of the policy.)

    "You are not allowed to use the word "loli". It is a bad word, no matter how people use it in real life, and only bad, ban-worthy people ever put those four letters together."

    "You are not allowed to badmouth works, even legendarily bad works, in anywhere but the approved ghetto, even if everyone in the world agrees that the plot indeed is an Idiot Plot, etc. You must take a coldly clinical approach to Twilight and the Star Wars Holiday Special."

    TV Tropes developed such draconian rules and the owner was so fond of sudden and arbitrary impositions from up high that it soured my enjoyment. I had been thinking that I should find out if there is an alternative to TV Tropes, so it was nice to find out that there are two. Now I just need to choose the one I like the best. It'll be interesting to see if either of the alternatives has changed the name of The Dragon trope to something that remotely describes what the trope is about.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @04:09PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @04:09PM (#44242)

    You seem oddly preoccupied with "loli" matters (I am inferring from context what that means).

    I am affronted at TVTropes's violation of its contributors' copyright, but see nothing wrong with them policing pedophilia as stringently as they want. And frankly it always seemed to me that Lolita itself got a strange pass from society at large. I guess good writing (or good directing in Polanski's case) counts for far more than it should.

    (Yes, yes, I know, one is literary fiction and the other is a director anally raping a 14 year old, so apples and rapists, sorry.)