iPhone Application infringes on Bulbapedia license

[TeraDyne]

Now that there's a bit of calm, let me give my $0.02:

As someone who uses the Creative Commons license for various things, as well as an amature web developer and programmer, let me say right now that there is some confusion in this whole thing.

1) The Derivitave Works clause doesn't really handle something like this, and even if it did, it wouldn't work very well in this case. This is because someone has essentially set up a browser shell that parses the data a bit differently so that it's displayed differently. The only way the DW clause would be in effect (in this case) would be if they were altering the data as it came in. If it's doing that, then you've got a case, but it doesn't seem to be that way.

2) Charging for the application is not the same as charging for the data. This is similar to what Opera did when they were charging for their web browser a while back (a pay-for application that accesses free data). The app itself may be made so that it only uses Bulbapedia, but as I said earlier, it's really nothing more than a custom browser that parses data a little differently. Had they included the data with the application, you could bring the NS clause into the fight. I agree with the moral aspect you bring to this one, but the argument isn't as sound as it seems.

3) The case with Adam Curry's photos (see post #36) was a bit different. The photos were being published by the tabloid. In the case of this app, you're not technically paying for the data, but the application itself. As I said, so long as he doesn't include the data with the application, there's no case for the NC clause.

4) The agrument about them leeching off your servers without displaing the ads is a bit iffy as well. I don't like blocking ads, as I understand people need to pay for the cost of running a website, but it's like saying that people who use DO use blocking in their web broswer should be blocked as well. I agree with the morals, but the argument is a bit one-sided there.

I agree that the app should be taken down due to the lack of morals behind it, and the lack of attribution, but saying that they should be brought down solely for using data from Bulbapedia in a pay-for custom browser is overreacting just a bit.

Also, to be honest, the fighting got a little overboard, and I did lose a bit of respect for the community. Had it not escalated the way it did, I wouldn't have had a problem with it, but to take it as far as the community did was wrong.

Edit: Couple of additional things that cropped up.

1) Copyright infringement is not where you want to take this. Since Nintendo/GameFreak/Pokemon Co. own the rights to everything Pokémon, you might end up being SoL in that fight. If you write something that uses characters that are under someone else's copyright, it becomes something of a grey area. Even though you own the rights to the story itself, as long as it uses those copyrighted characters, you can't claim to own the rights to everything surrounding it. I had this problem with an old story I wrote, and found out the hard way that you don't always win in those conditions.

2) I'm trying to stay neutral in this whole argument, hoping to be a voice of reason. I don't agree with how this kid has acted, but I also can't stand behind the way the Bulbagarden community has acted. Just an FYI.

 

[Archaic]

*is posting this at 1am local time due to having trouble sleeping*

The only way the DW clause would be in effect (in this case) would be if they were altering the data as it came in. If it's doing that, then you've got a case, but it doesn't seem to be that way.

To quote from section 1b of our license (emphasis in bold mine)

"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.

The application is an abridgement of our material in that they don't display all the content from the page they're pulling the data from, only certain portions that they're pulling based on specific key parameters.
The application may be recasting our material in that the user may not be directly accessing Bulbapedia themselves. This could only be confirmed by observing the code of the application.
The application is transforming and adapting our material both in the sense that they have performed an abridgement, and also in the sense that the application throws out all of our formatting to apply their custom format. A web browser does not apply a different format to the code we provide, they simply display and interpret that format according to limited rules (such as where a user has told their browser to not display pictures, or where they're using adblocking software).

2) Charging for the application is not the same as charging for the data. This is similar to what Opera did when they were charging for their web browser a while back (a pay-for application that accesses free data). The app itself may be made so that it only uses Bulbapedia, but as I said earlier, it's really nothing more than a custom browser that parses data a little differently. Had they included the data with the application, you could bring the NS clause into the fight. I agree with the moral aspect you bring to this one, but the argument isn't as sound as it seems.

You're comparing apples and oranges. A paid-for web browser can access many sites, as opposed to this which can only access information from our site only. That specificity makes a very big difference legally.

3) The case with Adam Curry's photos (see post #36) was a bit different. The photos were being published by the tabloid. In the case of this app, you're not technically paying for the data, but the application itself. As I said, so long as he doesn't include the data with the application, there's no case for the NC clause.

There's no need for him to include the data in the application itself for the license and the NC clause to apply, because he is still actively interacting with the data to present it. To go back to your example with the web browser, and to further demonstrate my point about transformation...
A web browser passively views the information read from any web page to display it to a user.
This application actively reads the information from our web page specifically, to display it in a format that is completely beyond the control of Bulbapedia.

4) The agrument about them leeching off your servers without displaing the ads is a bit iffy as well. I don't like blocking ads, as I understand people need to pay for the cost of running a website, but it's like saying that people who use DO use blocking in their web broswer should be blocked as well. I agree with the morals, but the argument is a bit one-sided there.

Please note that in my posts, and in my emails to them, I have not brought this point up. There is a legal issue here (because he's using another web server's bandwidth to make a profit for himself), but it's not the primary issue in this case.

I agree that the app should be taken down due to the lack of morals behind it, and the lack of attribution, but saying that they should be brought down solely for using data from Bulbapedia in a pay-for custom browser is overreacting just a bit.

I must respectfully disagree. Our license was specifically chosen to prevent commercial usage of our content, and this is clearly commercial use. Their application is so specific in coding that a small change at our end can break it and cause it to crash. Their application could not possibly exist without Bulbapedia, and would completely cease to function if we no longer existed. On the face of that alone, they're clearly a derivative work.

2) I'm trying to stay neutral in this whole argument, hoping to be a voice of reason. I don't agree with how this kid has acted, but I also can't stand behind the way the Bulbagarden community has acted. Just an FYI.

There's being a voice of reason, and there's adopting a "golden mean" fallacy in logic. I'm sorry, but I do feel like you're doing the latter. Even if some parts of the community have been a bit over the top, that doesn't make what this person has done any less wrong morally or legally.

 

[TeraDyne]

*The application is an abridgement of our material in that they don't display all the content from the page they're pulling the data from, only certain portions that they're pulling based on specific key parameters.
The application may be recasting our material in that the user may not be directly accessing Bulbapedia themselves. This could only be confirmed by observing the code of the application.
The application is transforming and adapting our material both in the sense that they have performed an abridgement, and also in the sense that the application throws out all of our formatting to apply their custom format. A web browser does not apply a different format to the code we provide, they simply display and interpret that format according to limited rules (such as where a user has told their browser to not display pictures, or where they're using adblocking software).

One could do the same using a web browser, a customized CSS file and some Javascript. However, it's not altering the code itself, just refusing to display some parts while showing the rest in a custom format. As long as it's not altering the code itself (and no one's sure what it's doing unless they have the source), it's not a derivitave in the sense of the term. It's simply displaying it differently, which isn't the same as actually being a derivitave.

However, since the CC license has gone and changed it's stance on DW since I last used it, I'll consede. However, I'm now relicenceing all of my guide under a custom licence, and dropping CC completely. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

You're comparing apples and oranges. A paid-for web browser can access many sites, as opposed to this which can only access information from our site only. That specificity makes a very big difference legally.

A web browser can also be made to access specific site, giving errors if you try to go somewhere else. You can also make it impossible by taking away the address bar. Still doesn't make it anything but a web browser. In fact, this exact same thing was done with NeoPets before their big change. Someone designed an IE variant specifically for NeoPets, displaying information in much the same way this application is. It was still a web browser, just heavily customized.

There's no need for him to include the data in the application itself for the license and the NC clause to apply, because he is still actively interacting with the data to present it. To go back to your example with the web browser, and to further demonstrate my point about transformation...
A web browser passively views the information read from any web page to display it to a user.
This application actively reads the information from our web page specifically, to display it in a format that is completely beyond the control of Bulbapedia.

Unless the CC has changed that as well (I wouldn't put it past them), you would have to include it. Also, a browser can be programed to actively read and show information in a manner different from it's original intent. Doesn't make it anything but a web browser.

Please note that in my posts, and in my emails to them, I have not brought this point up. There is a legal issue here (because he's using another web server's bandwidth to make a profit for himself), but it's not the primary issue in this case.

The problem is that it was brought up, and is part of that problem. If he were displaying said ads, this situation probably wouldn't end up being a major deal. Again, the same can be said for any pay-for browser, and even more so for those that do ad blocking. They're making a profit from free information, and if they're not displaying ads, then you wouldn't be making any revenue.

I must respectfully disagree. Our license was specifically chosen to prevent commercial usage of our content, and this is clearly commercial use. Their application is so specific in coding that a small change at our end can break it and cause it to crash. Their application could not possibly exist without Bulbapedia, and would completely cease to function if we no longer existed. On the face of that alone, they're clearly a derivative work.

And a small change in coding can break any website for IE, sometimes causing it to crash. You're also wrong that the app couldn't exist without Bulbapeida, as it could sap off of another service. As long as it can parse data from a source, it would continue to live. "That's how the cloud works", as some web developers would say.

There's being a voice of reason, and there's adopting a "golden mean" fallacy in logic. I'm sorry, but I do feel like you're doing the latter. Even if some parts of the community have been a bit over the top, that doesn't make what this person has done any less wrong morally or legally.

I never said it did, but as they say, "two wrongs don't make a right". As I said, both sides were in the wrong: the developer for pulling this sort of immoral stunt, and the community for taking things too far. Revenge can be just as immoral as the original act. That's why I can't stand behind either side.

 

[AbbyNormal]

I never said it did, but as they say, "two wrongs don't make a right". As I said, both sides were in the wrong: the developer for pulling this sort of immoral stunt, and the community for taking things too far. Revenge can be just as immoral as the original act. That's why I can't stand behind either side.

Thank you for saying that we weren't wrong for being upset. I agree in that there is entirely too much trolling going on out there now. It just plain makes us look bad. Sure, the kid who made the app looks immature and kinda dumb when he's too stubborn to take it down, but how do you think it makes us look when we start talking about "infiltrating his Facebook" and spamming him til he takes the app down? (No offense to whoever posted that idea. It was pretty smart, in a covert-ops sort of way.)

We really need to take the higher ground in this, and let Archaic and App Dude Man fight this out amongst themselves. Yes, we can be pissed. But even though a lot of us put a lot of time and effort and heart into this site, it really isn't our place to fight this out. There's a difference between supporting and antagonizing. Let the people in charge resolve this.

/rant.

*braces for flames* :blush:

 

[Jioruji Derako]

*braces for flames* :blush:

*flames*

Agreed with Abby on this one. Archaic is really the only person who needs to be contacting Studio Bebop here, and the admins on Bulbapedia have already taken full care of everything on that end as well.

If you bought the app and found it didn't work, by all means, go post a negative review. You were cheated of money, you have every right to be mad.
But if you don't own this app? It's really not your place to be reviewing it.

Pitchfork-wielding mobs are a ton of fun and all until someone loses an eye.

Geo - a.k.a. Jioruji Derako

 

[AbbyNormal]

*flames*

Agreed with Abby on this one. Archaic is really the only person who needs to be contacting Studio Bebop here, and the admins on Bulbapedia have already taken full care of everything on that end as well.

If you bought the app and found it didn't work, by all means, go post a negative review. You were cheated of money, you have every right to be mad.
But if you don't own this app? It's really not your place to be reviewing it.

Pitchfork-wielding mobs are a ton of fun and all until someone loses an eye.

Geo - a.k.a. Jioruji Derako

*firehose to flame*

Well, um, you can't review something on iTunes without owning it first. I sure as hell (what a weird phrase...) hope that people don't go out and buy it just so they can barrage the review boards.

And of course, the app doesn't work now because of a few...erm.. changes made to the site. *slyfaced*

 

[Luxio2k8]

It’s really sad and disgusting that this is going on.

Hopefully, a resolution can be reached with Studio Bebop soon.

 

[Jioruji Derako]

*firehose to flame*

Well, um, you can't review something on iTunes without owning it first. I sure as hell (what a weird phrase...) hope that people don't go out and buy it just so they can barrage the review boards.

Hmm, that's good that only customers can review on iTunes. But there's still been a bunch of people posting on other 3rd-party review sites, as well as on YouTube.

And of course, the app doesn't work now because of a few...erm.. changes made to the site. *slyfaced*

Oh, I noticed that. :evil: *is the one who converted all the Hoenn Pokémon*

Geo - a.k.a. Jioruji Derako

 

[TEAM BLUE]

Well this is bad..... i hope they learn their lesson later.

 

[AbbyNormal]

Well this is bad..... i hope they learn their lesson later.

If there's one thing I've learned about life, it's that karma is a bigger bitch than even my mother.

I have faith this will be resolved. Of course, I've written about five different papers about MLK Jr this week, so "peaceful protest" and "hope" are far too present in my mind lol.

But HEY. At least this got people thinking about making a REAL Bulbapedia app!

 

[Myles Grey]

However, since the CC license has gone and changed it's stance on DW since I last used it, I'll consede. However, I'm now relicenceing all of my guide under a custom licence, and dropping CC completely. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

You must have last used it a looong time ago, because it's been like that since v1.

A web browser can also be made to access specific site, giving errors if you try to go somewhere else. You can also make it impossible by taking away the address bar. Still doesn't make it anything but a web browser. In fact, this exact same thing was done with NeoPets before their big change. Someone designed an IE variant specifically for NeoPets, displaying information in much the same way this application is. It was still a web browser, just heavily customized.

If they removed Neopets' copyright line at the bottom then that would be copyright infringement.

The problem is that it was brought up, and is part of that problem. If he were displaying said ads, this situation probably wouldn't end up being a major deal. Again, the same can be said for any pay-for browser, and even more so for those that do ad blocking. They're making a profit from free information, and if they're not displaying ads, then you wouldn't be making any revenue.

That's completely different. Communicating with a server via TCP/IP in order to obtain information that the willing gives, and parsing the data returned is not the equivalent to taking that data, reformatting it and selling it.

And a small change in coding can break any website for IE, sometimes causing it to crash. You're also wrong that the app couldn't exist without Bulbapeida, as it could sap off of another service. As long as it can parse data from a source, it would continue to live. "That's how the cloud works", as some web developers would say.

It would be different.

Besides, the Creative Commons license is not shown and the authors are not listed. Clearly violating the license.

 

[Falconwing]

I've been wondering if this might cause a bit of a Titanic effect. Suppose GF gets wind of this and doesn't like it and they start pressing down on Studio Bebop. I know a few years ago when Warner Bros. was going after Harry Potter fansites, they had a strict rule that no merchandise could be sold online without Warner Bros.'s permission. I'm a bit concerned that Gf might do the same thing and we get caught in the crossfire, since, despite not being voluntarily connected, we are connected to this guy.

Course, that's worst-case scenario.

 

[TEAM BLUE]

If there's one thing I've learned about life, it's that karma is a bigger bitch than even my mother.

I have faith this will be resolved. Of course, I've written about five different papers about MLK Jr this week, so "peaceful protest" and "hope" are far too present in my mind lol.

But HEY. At least this got people thinking about making a REAL Bulbapedia app!

FIVE!!!!!That's a lot!!Well lol yeah your right.

 

[dragonite24]

If we make an app ourselves, we're also infringing HIS copyright.
But because it uses this sever without permission in the first place..
Well, this is going to be complex.

 

[Rellik]

If we make an app ourselves, we're also infringing HIS copyright.
But because it uses this sever without permission in the first place..
Well, this is going to be complex.

Not really. The only way an official Bulbapedia App could possibly infringe any copyright this guy may have is if the Bulbapedia App was made by copying the code he used to make this App.

 

[ashita]

Well this is sure complicated
i wish you luck with that from what ive seen in the past these kinda cases ntoriously difficult to resolve

 

[Steven]

If we make an app ourselves, we're also infringing HIS copyright.
But because it uses this sever without permission in the first place..
Well, this is going to be complex.

If an application was created by Bulbapedia based directly on Bulbapedia, then nobody would be infringing on anyone.

 

[yukasama]

okay first of all, bebop is a stupid name,
and second, a bulbapedia app would be awesome

 

[Mr. Pokemon]

If we make an app ourselves, we're also infringing HIS copyright.
But because it uses this sever without permission in the first place..
Well, this is going to be complex.

Infringing whose copyright? Bebop's? Yeah right! His application is basically taking the built-in Safari technology already in the iPhone and changing slightly what it gets from our server. It probably didn't take much effort. Besides, he's the one who's violating our CC license.

If Bulbapedia made an application for accessing Bulbapedia on the iPhone, it wouldn't be violating anybody's copyright.

It's the fact that this kid is taking our data which is free and selling it is what's wrong. Not only that, but there is no kind of attribution for the content. That's the big problem.

Are people actually defending someone who striped the site of its ads and then sold the content for $1.99?

 

[Our Wasted Years]

If we make an app ourselves, we're also infringing HIS copyright.
But because it uses this sever without permission in the first place..
Well, this is going to be complex.

I see that you're not familiar with the copyright laws. Like the other 10 people already said, Bulbapedia wouldn't be infringing his copyright because he has NOTING copyrighten (sp).