Forum:What if Jagex makes their own wiki?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > What if Jagex makes their own wiki?
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 3 January 2012 by Thebrains222.

I think Jagex are making their own wiki with the site update this month. Is that a good idea? How will this community feel about it?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) on 22:07, November 1, 2011 (UTC).

Pre-release discussion archived here.

Post-release discussion[edit source]

The Jagex wiki was released today. Discussion after this point concerns the Jagex wiki release.

 a proofreader ▸ 

20:39, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea Lord Relztik 08:14, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

[1] Make of it what you will. Ronan Talk 12:56, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

I could write a huge textwall on how crappy it is >.> Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:25, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there has ever been a company that's run it's own successful Wiki of their product. This will be no different, the bad coding, unfriendly requirementss, and overall bad navigation setup will kill their Wiki before it ever gets off the ground. That's my two cents. --Whiplash 16:03, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
It's ugly and one page took as much time to load as ten pages here. Absolutely crap. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 16:13, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - at least all they've currently copied from us is the name and the message "search The Runescape Wiki" in the search box --Statistics.pngT M Malice Talk 16:06, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Well, what you might get soon is people copying and pasting from our wiki to the official one, which will be extremely annoying as we release stuff under a free use license or something like that, and can't do anything about it. However, per whiplash, the requirements to edit the wiki include being a member. All of the other ones are (just) fair enough, because that will help with vandalism, but having to pay to edit a wiki makes people question whether it is a one. Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 16:36, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

I found something stolen! Check out their"Stackable" page. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 16:32, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

I dunno what fails more, F2Ps rioting for highscores back or Jagex thinking that an immature community can maintain a wiki... Talk to me! Commander Valde Valeo Adv. Log Talk to me! 16:53, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic - I've already cleaned out two entire pages for directly copying/pasting from this real wiki. One of them came with links/templates/and all, the other someone went through and removed all the redlinks to make it look real. Pfft. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:14, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Rune platebody, two dragon chainbody articles, flax, bee-keeper, saradomin godsword, armadyl godsword, and stackable are the pages I've seen copied so far. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:16, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I took care of 2 of those and saw a third. Is there a way to view recent activity? Their wiki is extremely hard to navigate.. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:19, November 22, 2011 (UTC) It's filled with account creations though. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:20, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
LOL look at their images. The dark background makes any white pixels left on the edge of an image that was transparentised by an unexperienced person stand out so much! Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 17:36, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Lol you deleted pages because they were copied from here. Where does it say you're not allowed to copy content from Wikia? This is a cite from Wikipedia: " If you want to use Wikipedia's text materials in your own books/articles/web sites or other publications, you can do so". Doesn't the same thing apply to Wikia pages. --AttackPenko TCE 17:39, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Read RuneScape:Copyrights dear. Or how about you actually search the Wikia website for more information, because this is not Wikipedia. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:41, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
That's stupid, you write about RuneScape here, but Jagex, the creators of RuneScape, aren't allowed to use your text. And why are you all hating on their new Wiki, I thought this was a RuneScape fansite, not RS haters' site. --AttackPenko TCE 17:50, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Stealing is stealing. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:51, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Also I should point out that the Jagex-made Wiki's rules states that all content you put on their wiki must be made by you and not copied from anywhere. There is no going around this. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:53, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's a valid point. --AttackPenko TCE 17:56, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Their Wiki is quite well developped (the knowedgle base was nicely expanded). At least the articles created by Jagex but maintained by community still miss the links (no good editors there so far!). Lets just sue them for violating our licence each time they deny to remove copied info (they still have to source us). And aren't they copying our name? :O Pretty annoying.
On top of that, editing is members only... (What will come next? Will editors get rewards? I believe they will).
This is the worst update so far. Whole website is messy, new F2P accounts don't have free trade anymore, mixed (mostly negative) feelings about ingame interface... and the turkey event is ridiculous. Jagex is attempting to destroy RS fansites; the reasons are obvious. Nobody has to know that there used to be Romeo and Juliet, or such things as bots or Falador massacre. Of course, RWT never existed. And Hiscores are pointless now (half of players from Top 10 are gone - why?) Dontlietome7 19:00, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Different "RS wiki" logs: Move log, Upload log. There doesnt seem to be a page creation log. My first attempt at a protest, don't know if there are any other threads QFC: 15-16-772-63395455 -- Ruderion (Talk) 18:01, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

While the discussion is going, shouldn't we put __NEWSECTIONLINK__ at the top of the page? It's awfully long... Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 19:13, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why there isn't an "Other" option in the report function on the "official" RS Wiki... Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 19:36, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

You can report direct copypasta's for the 3rd option, for being a violation of Jagex's policies. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:25, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

I know I do not speak much about these issues, but I think this is an outrage. We have been making the best game guide for 6 years, and Jagex decides they want their own "Wiki". Do they have rights for that? I don't think so. We have to do something about this. Personally I think they want more site visits. Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 22:04, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure thay have the "rights" to make a wiki on a game they created...

Also, since nobody has objected to me putting __NEWSECTIONLINK__ on this very long page to help people, I have done so in this edit. Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 22:45, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I found a couple of articles there that completely copied our content. [2][3] Jagex really needs to make it more clear this type of stuff is not acceptable. Smithing (talk | contribs) 23:50, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

If they copied us, it's probably some player editor's doing, not Jagex's. Dragon claw.png Zezzima Talk Edit # SkillsFile:Turmoil.gif|Yay turmoil! 00:18, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
They are still responsible for it. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 00:24, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
Well protection starts at home, maybe we can get a site notice to inform others that is is a violation of our license to copy content without giving other editors full credit. at any rate, i cant edit that wiki, i have no edit button, and whenever i click on a red link, i always get the message "you need to log in to edit the wiki" even if i am logged my talk page! King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 00:43, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
Just checked, those pages have been taken down What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 01:04, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I checked out the Tzhaar Fight Caves randomly and the info is quite short but OK. Still, we've been around for so much longer and have such greater, more comprehensive information, that they won't catch up to us anytime soon even if their editors are dedicated. They do have the advantage of being official though, so they can promote themselves to the entire player base. Dragon claw.png Zezzima Talk Edit # SkillsFile:Turmoil.gif|Yay turmoil! 00:17, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I am hugely disappointed today by looking at their new website with copied content. I have written up a email and I will inform you guys of any response I get from them. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 00:44, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Well gentlemen, it has been an honour editing along side you. I do believe that the wiki's darkest hour is upon us. I will be questioning and commenting jagex by all their media inlets, in hopes of getting an official Jagex standpoint on the situation. I will update you on any info. Let it be known that we are the No.1 source of runescape knowledge that anyone can edit, and no other site shall take that claim from us!

Also, the new icons are a bit annoying. PUNCHING! SOLVES! EVERYTHING! 01:13, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

LOL their wiki sucks. It will catch on, though :-(

Beyond that, we should get Wikia to sue them for stealing our content without proper attribution. ajr 01:33, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

We won't get very far suing Jagex for anything. We are a fansite about their game and wikis are not our idea. I don't know about copying/pasting content about their game... Dragon claw.png Zezzima Talk Edit # SkillsFile:Turmoil.gif|Yay turmoil! 01:52, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Then you obviously have no clue about the license our content is made under. ajr 01:53, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
I was gonna add that the content here was created by a huge number of users, some of whom might approve that Jagex acquires it. Dragon claw.png Zezzima Talk Edit # SkillsFile:Turmoil.gif|Yay turmoil! 01:55, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
We make our content under a license which requires people who use it to attribute it to us. It doesn't matter who made the game, we are the authors of the content and that gives us legal rights under that license. Also, the earlier post was a bit harsh, sorry about that. ajr 01:55, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
You should read RuneScape:About/Copying notice. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 02:10, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

IMPORTANT! Comment - Everyone Jagex has already Made their own wiki on the Runescape site itself. Look at it. I think this may need to be closed Quest.png Dragonslayer2010 Talk Guestbook My website Quest point cape.png 02:13, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Not bothering to scroll down huh. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 02:16, November 23, 2011 (UTC),16,196,63397538 My post. Might not be as good as A Pro Person's but you get the point. --Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 02:32, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

The requirements to edit are absolutely ridiculous. Matt (t) 05:47, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

After logging in and taking a look around, as Gaz said, I could write a text wall on how crappy it is. Matt (t) 05:55, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

In other news - Have any of you guys seen the "makeover" Jagex made to their Facebook and Twitter pages? I lol'd. Matt (t) 06:28, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Prostitute profile pictures on facebook is irrelevant to this YG. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:49, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
What. Suppa chuppa Talk 06:51, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
It's an observation that Jagex is blatantly trying to make "sex sell." Anyways, this is irrelevant to the wiki that Jagex made. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 07:28, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
Lol 222 talk 07:52, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Like I said in the previous section, we need to keep all our eyes on the Jagex Wiki and leap at every single piece of copied info that they have used. Right now, we are doing this, but I am sure that keeping this up in the long term will be unsustainable, and I think Jagex knows this. We must take some sort of action that will lead to permanent changes relating to this plagiarism, hopefully our readers will continue to support us by using our site. I am hoping Jagex's censorship policies and restrictions will also drive away any potential editors of their site. Might write more later... 222 talk 07:52, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I won't bother commenting on the new wiki's crapness, as that is fairly self explanatory. From reading above, it seems that both Wikia AND Jagex prohibit copying from our Wiki, through their rules. I think we need to alert Wikia to this little issue we are having, and request official help. They are there to help us, and they will (especially seeing how important our Wiki is to their, well, business). I think people should continue to blank pages that are copied. Both because I can't see a way to revert (such confusing design), and also because their Recent Changes is so clogged and useless that no one would be able to decipher page blanking from the list. Not that anyone who will edit that wiki will have the intelligence or experience to work out how to use Recent Changes. Chicken7 >talk 08:50, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Motivational Comment Can your account be blocked from editing the wiki? If so, we can't just keep blanking pages that plagiarise. How about we just put in something like "This page uses (a lot of) content from the RSW" and the word RSW would be an external link to our wiki. We do have a right to do that don't we? Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 10:45, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

i) Yes.
ii) We can and will.
iii) External links are completely prohibited on that wiki.
iv) Far too time consuming. Ronan Talk 10:49, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
Well then all of us will get blocked, and they'll copy-paste again. And knowing Jagex, there may be in-game repercussions for vandalising their wiki. Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 11:02, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
No. We are legally entitled to remove plagiarised content at our leisure, and if Jagex are going to take any action on copyright at all, it will be to help, not hinder us. I don't know what you're talking about by in-game repercussions. Ronan Talk 11:17, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
I think Jagex already has a way of muting/banning people from the forums if they get in-game muted/banned and vice versa, so it is possible that anyone who violates the wiki rules enough would receive an in game mute or even a ban. 11:47, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I don't see what they are doing, they should just put a link from their site to this wiki. The only thing i see is that they are copying this wiki into their own page.. They have a Game Guide right? Knowledge Base? What's next.. Item database and bestiary? Killing all other information / fansites?? Buzz (Talk#P ) 11:06, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

My fear is that among other things, the opportunity for discussion and debate such as that contained within this page would be lost with the development of the official wiki. I also find the official wiki difficult to navigate...Raglough 14:19, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Leaks has been totally copied, tables & images and all. But we can't claim ownership of the images so there's nothing we can do really... sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:02, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

yup. But, can't we blank it because even though the images are theirs and we can't claim ownership, the content is still completely copied from this wiki? I think that even though it is not that much text, it is still a direct copypaste without attribution. I don't know enough about this though, so I didn't do anything, just asking if anyone could check. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:12, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - First off, kudos to you all for remaining so calm and collected about this issue, no ranting or hating on Jagex simply for trying to create a wiki. Like Flaysian said, Jagex is constricted by the law and as far as I've seen from the various licenses, they're obligated to either stand aside or help us out. Secondly, Jagex didn't enter into wiki-creation overnight, and I would hope that they've put some thought into what potential situations would arise. At the moment, I'd recommend we remain calm about this and see how / if Jagex responds within the next few days; I would wonder if they're waiting for us to make the first move to either protect our content or let it be. Just my two cents Penderwyll 18:06, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Cowers in fear Amg maybe Jagex will Copyright the name "Runescape wiki"? It doesn't use wikimedia so it doesn't have to follow the free license rule that everyone else does. Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 10:56, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the content of this wiki is released under the Creative Commons BY-SA license according to RuneScape:Copyrights. That means:
  • Text from this wiki can be used if (and only if)
    • attribution is given; a full list of previous editors and a backlink is required
    • the text is released under the same license
This can easily be achieved by using the Special:Export-page and import the full history into a new wiki, backlink it in the summary and release it under cc-by-sa-3.0. However, this doesn't look like the case. Sumurai8 11:35, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
I support free knowledge, but I don't like people stealing content. If the contents of this wiki were free under 'public domain', everyone could do with it what they want, but it isn't free under/in the public domain. You can't just change a license after running this wiki this long. I have nominated a page for deletion there and watch closely what is gonna happen: diff. Sumurai8 12:06, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
No, what I meant was maybe they'll copyright the name "The RuneScape Wiki" and so we will have to move/rename the wiki. Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 12:57, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
Plus, as I said their wiki doesn't use MediaWiki, so the Export thing is irrelevant Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 12:59, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
This site is using the name "The RuneScape Wiki" for quite some time now. It might turn out rather difficult to claim copyright on the name now and sue a site (which has natural copyright on the name, because everything is copyrighted by default). I think it's highly unlikely that they want to destroy one of their fansites just for the sake of a name. I doubt if much of the editors here would go edit there. It works rather horrible at the moment. Special:Version doesn't exist on their wiki and Special:SpecialPages, Special:Export and Special:Import is hidden from the public for some strange reason. I think that their wiki actually runs mediawiki, but almost everything is customizable and you just don't recognize it. You can hack every part of the site with extensions and use a mediawiki-backbone.
Back to topic. At least I would like to opt for a sitenotice that content of this site can't be copied 1:1 to the wiki on runescape's site with a link to RuneScape:Copyrights. Sumurai8 13:17, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
Even though I think that's a great idea, but it might look like "MINE MINE MINE!!!!!", like some people already complained about on the RSOF. It should just be a short notice that our content is copyrighted, and it is not allowed to copy it to the Jagex RSWiki. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger
The official wiki is definently a heavily modified version of MediaWiki. 14:59, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - According to Jagex's RuneScape Wiki logs, it has been working since 13 September 2011. Right now, Jagex hasn't filed a trademark/patent on "RuneScape Wiki" in case anyone wondered about that little bit of information. Not that it really matters, but I do have a few things that need to be addressed.

Jagex's RuneScape Wiki has brought some immediate issues to the table. SEO now has Jagex's wiki with the tagline and pagetitle as "RuneScape Wiki" while ours is "The RuneScape Wiki". Not a huge issue, but one that needs to be looked into. We could choose to stick with the current one or make it to something else, but for the current time I'll just wait and see how this plays out over the next month.

Currently Google and other search engines favor Wikia's RuneScape Wiki. However, over time, Jagex's wiki will be higher if they begin to flesh out their wiki (and top 10 results are done based on payment to the respective SE, so I do believe Wikia Inc. loses out here despite the content in due course). This both relates to copied content and new content alike.

In the past, we have discussed how only Jagex owns the vast majority of images uploaded onto the wiki. Now, we see RuneScape players taking these same images and uploading them to Jagex's RuneScape Wiki. As much as I'd like the users on that wiki to attribute who screen-capt'ed the image and trans'ed it in the first place, but that's not going to happen and how we don't have any claim to them. I suggest we re-look at the watermark section of the image policy. I don't totally support it, but I feel that a semi-transparent version, reduced to a very small section of a given image of File:Wiki-wordmark.png be placed on each image to show how much work is put into making those images for this site, not theirs.

Fansite has also made it clear to not copy/paste with their "Tip.It and the RuneScape Wiki" newspost on their mainpage. Our copyright notice is not even near the top of the main page and could be said to not exist. This should be changed immediately. Ryan PM 03:29, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comment Just looked at the front page. The clearer "Copyrights of this wiki" notice is a positive move. Whoever did that, nice work. Raglough 08:14, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Failure - Their search function doesn't even work and that's just the first thing I tried! I search "TzTok-Jad", it returned "There is no page with this title". I search Jad, it gives me all the Jad INCLUDING Jad. So, you can't even use the real title. Look at this page for it: All the info is: max hit, level, etc. Then the article is, "YOU GETZ DA FIRE CAPE". As opposed to TzTok-Jad here, which is great.

Comment - I notice that on some pages, such as the quest and event pages, we have links to their wiki. I think these links should be removed as they really serve no purpose. We are linking to pages that the community can edit, and that contains content that is not official. Not only that, most of the pages we are linking to are worse than our articles on the same subject. Smithing (talk | contribs) 21:33, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

They should all be removed immediately. 222 talk 01:19, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have taken a glance over Jagex' attempt at a wiki, but it has a major lack of structure and rules. They have a policy page mentioning many policies but all those links redirect to the main policy page again. As far as I can see, there is no style convention, and in fact it doesn't even specify pages should be written in British or American English. But then again, I found it hard to navigate so maybe I just couldn't find the rules. Most of all I just feel Jagex should have supported this Wiki rather than compete with it. Talk to meTHARKONMy hiscores 11:10, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Disappointed - Why would they try to make a wiki from scratch when there is already a very large one with a dedicated community? Idiots, way to insult the runescape community -.- Soilder198 02:37, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

What if? - At time of writing this the Jagex wiki has "9,373 articles written and 248,765 users". Take a long hard look at what those articles are made up of and decide if you really need to be discussing how best to combat it. Ignoring it seems to work fine. --cqm talk 11:43, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Adding a watermark to all images[edit source]

Proposal copied from above section:
In the past, we have discussed how only Jagex owns the vast majority of images uploaded onto the wiki. Now, we see RuneScape players taking these same images and uploading them to Jagex's RuneScape Wiki. As much as I'd like the users on that wiki to attribute who screen-capt'ed the image and trans'ed it in the first place, but that's not going to happen and how we don't have any claim to them. I suggest we re-look at the watermark section of the image policy. I don't totally support it, but I feel that a semi-transparent version, reduced to a very small section of a given image of File:Wiki-wordmark.png be placed on each image to show how much work is put into making those images for this site, not theirs. Ryan PM 03:29, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - The watermark would look terrible on images of NPCs.. But i think that uploading images from here to their wiki would be against Jagex's policy, where they say that you have to OWN the things that you contribute. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 07:55, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an okay idea, but having a bot do it would be the only feasible way. Matt (t) 07:59, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Super Strong Support i dont nessessarily like a water mark, but other fansites have used it to stop thier images from being uploaded, and its working!, Its a risk we will have to take, but if it will stop our pics from being copied, id be willing to take my talk page! King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 08:02, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

and after all we dont want people claiming credit for our work,and Jagex is doing nothing about it to my talk page! King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 04:01, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Support adding watermarks - Even though I'd rather not have watermarks on our images, if Jagex isn't going to respect the work our editors have done to get those pics, I agree this is the only good thing we could do. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:16, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Maybe if we ask Wikia to use PHP in their image servers for adding a watermark to all images (even previous versions, which bots couldn't do) so that even the 'smart ones' trying to steal our images couldn't steal them in the previous versions then. I think Wikia would agree this is the best thing to do, as I'm fairly sure they don't want Jagex to steal all of our images either. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:16, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support Joey's PHP solution - As said, this will stop Jagex wiki editors from copying current as well as previous images from our database. Also, this needs to be implemented quickly as every day we spend discussing this, more images will be irreversibly copied without attribution. 222 talk 11:07, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

And twere best done quickly Watermarks our little hearts out.--Degenret01 13:24, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

We legally can't, since they aren't our images. Anything from the game is used under fair use, and that does not give us the right to stamp a watermark onto them, effectively claiming them as our work. ajr 14:17, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I googled around a bit and checked wikipedia for any confirmations of it being illegal, but couldn't find anything. Are you sure it is illegal to watermark those images? Do you have any source to believe that? Also, has watermarked their images for a long time now, and Jagex never did anything about it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:45, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
We don't own the images.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster identified digital watermarking as a technology that can be used by rights holders and file-sharing networks to deter piracy and illegal use of copyrighted entertainment content.


That pretty much sums it up. Since we do not hold the rights for the images, we can't watermark them. ajr 22:07, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Well we made those screenshot for own use. These screens are our images, they may not copy our images. So we may take screenshots and use them, but they may not be copied. also uses watermark. I Support. Buzz (Talk#P ) 14:21, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

NO WATERMARKS - Please DO NOT add watermarks. It will look terrible, just imagine watermarks on images of items, on images of chatheads.. Not to mention, adding watermarks DEGRADES the quality of images, meaning that the jagex wiki will be able to capture BETTER, watermarkless images. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 14:45, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

You already opposed a number of lines above. You can't oppose again. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 14:54, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose watermark - we shouldn't strictly enforce ownership on images, particularly when all we did to create most of these images was position and push print screen. I've never respected other people when they implied ownership of image content that wasn't truly theirs to take ownership of. Furthermore, it will be more work than it's worth, and may deter people from uploading images. --Henneyj 15:01, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

New information - Images that are stolen, should NOT be nominated for deletion, as Mod Ajd stats "Requests for deletion due to copyright claims need to be submitted through the proper channels. We are unable to review any issues not raised using the correct process." .. I'm not sure what the correct process is however.. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 15:29, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: It isn't illegal to add watermarks to images on wikia. It however makes them unusable for anything. Jagex still owns the copyright on the images. The only way you can use a screenshot of a game that isn't 'free' is by using it under 'fair use'. The person that made the screenshot can't claim any kind of copyright on the screenshots they made. As Jagex owns the copyright on those images, it's unlikely that they will delete the images. I personally don't like that people just copy and paste images from wikia to runescape's official wiki without giving any credit to the person that made the screenshot, but they don't do anything illegal. If you add watermarks to all images you ruin most of the images here. You can probably add the name of the original uploader here to the imagepage on the official runescape wiki to add that bit of credit. Sumurai8 16:43, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support but: make a different watermark. Putting the currently proposed image over anything will make it unusable. ---- Cycloneblaze (user - talk - contribs) 17:01, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest something like [[File:RW logo.png|50px]] over every image. It is quite clear, and not too disturbing. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:34, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know what adding watermarks mean.. here are some examples.. [5] [6] [7] [8] Surely you can see the problem now? If an image has transparency then the watermark can easily be removed.. if the watermark is OVER the subject of the image then it will look terrible too. Not to mention for our smaller images, which make up most of them, the watermark is far too big! Must i also point out the futility of adding "Runescape Wiki" watermarks when they are ALSO named The Runescape Wiki!&nbsp Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 17:41, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could do what other fansites like Sal's do - write something like "For use on RSW only" somewhere no-one will care? Hmmm? Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 18:20, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Plus Battleben, your watermark is kinda crummy. I'm sure if we use Joey's there will be no problem. Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 18:23, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Really? This looks pretty damn bad to me! rwicon.png. Also, other sites don't do it on images of npcs and such, only on maps and things like that. Note that watermarks are pointless anyway since they are ALSO the runescape wiki, and they could just look in the image history.. and automating the process of adding watermarks to all images would be a technical nightmare, in addition to taking WEEKS to do, as pngoptimizationbot proves. If this passes i will likely leave this wiki, and move to the jagex one. Not to mention i could take the unwatermarked images with me. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 18:36, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
It looks bad to me too. Why don't we make it semi transparent just like Joey's WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!! Second, small images like the one you posted here don't need watermarks beacuse its pointless to protect them as anyone could take that in about 5 minutes. Third, so what if it takes weeks. It would be bad if a person had to do it, however, "as pngoptimizationbot proves" we have bots on our side to do this. Plus most of the noobs at Jagex wiki don't even know what a file history is. Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 18:52, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Um, that was Joeys... At any rate Runescape Wiki watermarks are utterly pointless when the aim is to protect them from the Runescape Wiki. Also, a bot would be terrible for adding watermarks, it would not be able to distinguish between image sizes for one thing. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 19:20, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
You clearly didn't get me there. I meant I said to use Joey's, I never attributed the watermark to myself :P Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 21:08, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Obviously the watermark would be scaled down for smaller images. Also, you can't take the images if you were to leave. They're not yours.ɳex undique 20:02, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Ben please don't be stupid now. Bluefire said "we make it semi transparent" which yours is obviously not, and then you say "that was Joeys". 2 examples of watermarked images with my example would be [9] and [10]. The inventory icon is perfectly visible, and just has a very unclear watermark on it. It is barely even visible. I wouldn't believe you really think the examples you gave are with watermarks, but to give you some more info about what exactly watermarks are, you can read the Wikipedia article about it. Anyway, watermarks don't really have to be that bad at all. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:13, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The above examples are terrible for what I wrote initially. I was thinking more like this and this. Nothing like the above examples that had no alpha channel over the whole item. Also, trying to say every image needs it isn't the case. It's obvious we should never watermark icon images or images that are around the ballpark of 100x100 pixels or less. A PHP script could make it scale depending on the dimensions of the upload and I'm sure a bot could do it, but it would be fairly tedious.

After thinking about it, no. We have 117,391 files on this wiki, and I doubt that the editors of the ORSW would be willing to copy all those files. And since the editing, RC and log pages make Conservapedia look fantastic, the ORSW will never catch up in a long time. At first, I was just throwing out there what we could do, adding watermarks is only good if we did have a different name sadly as pointed out by Battleben. People will continue to use us despite the plethora of adverts that Wikia keeps adding to us and "competitor" gaming advertisements. Ryan PM 19:46, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I don't see a problem with a small watermark. ɳex undique 20:02, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Told ya. You just need to get a normal, not massive and properly transparentised watermark (with no white pixels sticking out, Ben) Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 21:05, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

No thanks - A watermark is seriously a last resort. We're not there yet, and it will devalue our content and make people think we're more scared of this than we are. ʞooɔ 21:09, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - This will cause generation loss after the translucent watermark is downloaded by an image maintenance person or bot, who would then upload a watermarked image and have it re-watermarked by the server, etc., until the original pixels under the watermark area are completely lost to the multiple re-uploads making it fully opaque. It would mess with User:PNGOptimisationBot. Visible watermarks on the (very small) item inventory icons would look bad if they were too big.

 a proofreader ▸ 

21:17, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I usually keep quiet, but this is something I must speak out. As a wikian who spent years on this site, of course, I don’t like the way people just copying things from here without attributing. But watermarks ruin images, even a small, semi-transparent one. And the problem is this is a wiki that anyone can edit, the uploader do not necessarily agree us to put a watermark on the images they created, it feels like claiming ownership over the general public’s work. We are here to share our RS knowledge, not to compete with other sites. And what if a user uploaded an image from other web sites and we put our watermark on it and claim rights over it, anyone can upload images and there are too many images on this site and we would never know. Isn’t the ideal of a wiki is all knowledge are free to share? Naikiw 21:47, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Note on legality. According to the US Supreme Court, images can only have a watermark applied to them if they hold the rights [11]. According to Jagex, all images of in-game content are copyright to Jagex[12]. Therefore, they hold the rights and we do not, making a watermark illegal. ajr 22:15, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Does a US Supreme Court's judgement apply here, though? Ronan Talk 09:41, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
This wiki is hosted by an American company on American servers, of course it applies. ajr 15:04, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Ouch - Ouch Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 08:08, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

However Naikiw, - your point is completely irrelevant since "Contributions licensed as CC-BY-SA. You do not have ownership of your edits. Users should never revert, edit or sign articles or files in an attempt to express ownership." Rephrase: when you upload an edit or an image to the wiki, it stops being yours. Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 08:13, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, if we put a watermark on an image that is form other sites than there is a problem, the internet is so vast that you will never know if it is from somewhere else. Naikiw 11:28, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - We can't watermark images that aren't ours. Also, it looks bad. There is a much simpler solution: let people not copy stuff from our wiki. Maybe make the new policy easier to notice. If everyone will read it, nobody will copy. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:28, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

What does that acheive though?, we have multiple warnings, and there are people who still copied text AFTER theyve been told not to, i even had someone pm me ingame to tell me to stop reverting, and that he was doing it "because it's easier"to my talk page! King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 09:44, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
What an idiot. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 13:29, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Remind me again why he's an idiot...? Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 15:34, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
He's talking about the guy who said copying is easier. 16:12, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
O_o Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 17:00, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

RAWR - Wow, this is a really douchebaggy move by Jagex. It's times like this that I'm glad I quit RuneScape. Good luck dealing with this, everybody. Best wishes to the editors of the real RuneScape Wiki! Telos 10:47, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... I guess. Also, per King, we can't propose a warning and expect people to follow it. If Jagex introduces some sort of in-game reward for edits (that's if they do though) the people will not stop at anything and copy from wherever they can find. And where easier to copy from than from a Wiki site which has the same code/markup which can be accessed and viewed (ergo copied) by anyone? Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 12:24, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - There may be no legal problem concerning adding watermarks, but we might lose editors by this act simply because people think the content is devalued, the wiki is not as free as before and the watermarks looks bad. As you can see so far we have no consensus here. Also it difficult to implement, it will mess up with bots, and we have different sizes of images, some as small as an inventory icon. For me this example by RyanPM looks terrible, the picture is totally ruined. Can't imagine what would it look like in info box. 17:41, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - If somethig like this (by Joey) can be allowed on this wiki; I this I would lose interest in this site. 17:58, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Please read the discussion directly above you. Ronan Talk 20:16, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
I did read the discussion. If I hadn't how do I know those examples by Joey and RyanPM. 23:34, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Urgent - On [[w:c:www:Terms_of_Use|Wikia's Terms of Use]], there is a section about copyright, and if there are copyright issues, it says to send an email to [email protected]. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 17:59, November 26, 2011 (UTC) Let's do what the Italian Wiki did. Redirect all pages to a protest banner while we chat away on a remote forum! --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 18:05, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Ya, no. That would kill us. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 18:12, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
We've already contacted Wikia, too. They don't seem overly interested yet. Ronan Talk 20:16, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Jeff, we got this. ʞooɔ 20:39, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
lol Matt (t) 20:45, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Not funny. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 23:53, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
lol! ajr 04:15, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
At least you know I'm not a troll and I actually care for this wiki. Maybe I'll support the new wiki. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 13:06, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
You do that. I can't even reply to your first statement. Ronan Talk 16:28, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

IS THIS ILLEGAL OR NOT - Confirmation please. I only see one person (Ajr) saying it's illegal, and no one else seems to confirm or deny it entirely. Someone needs to find this out absolutely before people start opposing/supporting this.. Seriously.. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 02:24, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Images are legal, but otherwise without proper attribution this is completely illegal. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 03:08, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
It depends. As the contributors at this wiki are not the copyright holders of the screenshots they take (being derivatives of non-free content), the copyright ultimately belongs to Jagex. However, according to their relatively liberal terms here, "[Fansites] must visibly acknowledge that the images are the property of Jagex Ltd, and that Jagex and RuneScape are registered trademarks of Jagex Limited, and you must provide a link to the official website". However, Jagex also reserves the right to "withdraw your permission to use these images at any time if [they] feel you are misusing them", which is a very ambiguous rationale.
For what it's worth, many of the images (such as this one found from Special:Random/File) have no copyright information whatsoever. Σ (talk) 03:30, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Okay. So is it illegal or not? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:31, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
It is illegal. I'm sorry if nobody else on this wiki cares for the legality of these things. ajr 04:15, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I don't know if them having the images is really illegal. On youtube vids they always have to say this content isn't mine, it belongs to Jagex, etc. Does this not apply to images too? Edmyg 03:00, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

That is what we do here on the RuneScape Wiki. We put "fair use" tags on all in-game and ( as well) images. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 03:04, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Or at least, we're in the process of putting fair use tags on our images. Matt (t) 03:07, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Note - It depends. As the contributors at this wiki are not the copyright holders of the screenshots they take (being derivatives of non-free content), the copyright ultimately belongs to Jagex. However, according to their relatively liberal terms here, "[Fansites] must visibly acknowledge that the images are the property of Jagex Ltd, and that Jagex and RuneScape are registered trademarks of Jagex Limited, and you must provide a link to the official website". However, Jagex also reserves the right to "withdraw your permission to use these images at any time if [they] feel you are misusing them", which is a very ambiguous rationale. For what it's worth, many of the images (such as this one found from Special:Random/File) have no copyright information whatsoever. Σ (talk) 03:30, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

You do realise, don't you, that just from linking that image here you have ensured that within a day it will have an HD replacement and all proper copyright tags applied to it? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:14, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO --Iiii I I I 04:17, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
So, you (psycho and/or Σ) suggest that because these images don't have templates yet, that they can be considered being used wrongly? What about that jagex may also be able to consider them all wrongly misused? They could simply take every image using Σ's logic and put it on their "wiki" as their own, per the rule that it is their copyrighted image. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 04:21, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
The image licensing templates are a relatively new project me and Cook have been working on. As you can see from my sandbox, so far we've done detailed item images, inventory images, chathead images, bestiary images, and we're in the process of doing NPC images, which is what you linked to. However, adding all the templates takes a very long time and can't really be automated as discretion is involved. If you'd like to lend a hand, all the templates you need (with documentation) are on my sandbox with a DPL list of images that need them. Matt (t) 04:49, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - Watermarks directly over the image would annoy viewers, but definitely do embarrass sites that copy/paste it wrongly. If they were off to the side/bottom then people could crop them out. But I'd also like to point out (since I didn't read the wall of text above) that whatever watermark about "The RuneScape Wiki" you put is likely gonna get confused with Jagex's wiki, and the whole thing will be pointless. (Maybe include "Wiki" in it) Dragon claw.png Zezzima Talk Edit # SkillsFile:Turmoil.gif|Yay turmoil! 05:41, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Our logo is different than theirs. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 06:26, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
they don't even have a logo, do they? it's just the words "RuneScape Wiki" in Kingthings Petrock. --Iiii I I I 14:14, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose watermarks - I think the argument about whether we own the images is irrelevant. We can put a big RW in the corner of the image, and that doesn't have to mean "we own this image". It can simply mean "we've vandalised this image, haha, take your own one!". Anyway, it would help protect us, but I don't think we're at that stage yet. I also think that this would be very hard to revert if it had adverse consequences. One of the things I love about RSW is that we don't put watermarks, even when all the other sites do. If readers started getting annoyed, how would we fix it? And what if Jagex's wiki does fall through and watermarks are no longer necessary? Let's just wait, and nudge Wikia some more. Chicken7 >talk 11:42, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cook Me Plox, putting watermarks is a last resort. I'd rather win over Jagex's wiki through quality. The people will know who to mock when they see the upload dates. --Void Knight 14:14, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with Chicken7. It's not about whether this is illegal or not. We also have to consider the feelings of our readers and editors. Naikiw 17:16, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Wait wait wait - "It's not about whether this is illegal or not" - ?!?!?. People have just ploughed on with the possible impact it could have on a portion of the community since Ajr brought up the Supreme Court's declaration. This is about whether it's legal or not, and that's what we need to focus on. There is absolutely zero point in having a wonderful watermark image or system in place and then realising it's illegal to implement. From what I understand of their findings, if we don't have exclusive rights to the content, we can't watermark it. If that's the case, this part of the discussion is over. Ronan Talk 20:17, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Failure - Their search function doesn't even work and that's just the first thing I tried! I search "TzTok-Jad", it returned "There is no page with this title". I search Jad, it gives me all the Jad INCLUDING Jad. So, you can't even use the real title. Look at this page for it: All the info is: max hit, level, etc. Then the article is, "YOU GETZ DA FIRE CAPE". As opposed to TzTok-Jad here, which is great. 20080201180922!Purple_partyhat.png Hunter103 Talk My weapon of choice, only after a zamorak godsword. 20:27, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support watermarking - Since no one has provided a good explanation as to whether it's illegal or not - don't other fansites watermark their images? I have yet to see a copied/pasted image from another fansite. They're all from us. THEY TOOK MY NEX IMAGE [email protected]#[email protected]#[email protected]#$. Not only the Nex image, but an old revision of the Nex image, all of our divine spirit shields, and so, so much more. To the opposers, "we're not at that point yet" - Yes, we are. The other fansites have watermarked images, this is why we are being attacked, and it will only continue from here. I don't like making a fuss over image ownership but seriously, when you spend 3 hours on images of spirit shields and some idiot comes and takes away all the credit (in the page history) with not even a mention of what fansite it came from, it makes me raeg. I support Ryan's idea of having a small watermark that doesn't cover much of the image (like barely covering Lucien's foot). How can this possibly put off our userbase? They will surely understand and it certainly doesn't take away from the picture. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 03:02, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per Fergs on the idea that we use a small watermark that doesn't cover much of the image. As long as the watermark doesn't obstruct people from viewing the images themselves, then I don't have a problem with it, really. [13] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 03:14, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Support Ryan's watermark - Having a small watermark like that doesn't affect the quality much, if at all, and stops them from taking our images. Images like inventory items and small images that are similar shouldn't have the watermark as it, but most all images should. Also the quicker we get this through the better, as each day we wait, another day images are taken. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:30, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Question, how will such a small watermark even help with anything? If it is so unobtrusive, what will stop people from copying it anyways? ajr 04:16, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Well for starters, it will make it easier to prove that an image is copied, which is probably why we haven't seen many (if any) images from Sal's Realm or However if we where to add a Watermark with a URL, it would give us enough to get Jagex to delete the image as their wiki cant feature links to external sites per Jagex rules. I still think any watermark would warrent for the removal of pictures though, especially since jagex has that lovely "no website advertising" rule. anyway, i hope that made at least some my talk page! King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 05:16, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Need I mention that it would probably also stop people from taking credit for our pictures?to my talk page! King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 06:01, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Pending - I think not using watermark is something very fundamental of this wiki, I doubt this policy should be changed. Ianho1992 05:14, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It will make our images look like garbage. Ts4kNfA.png 05:45, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

How does a small watermark that might not even cover the image make it look like garbage? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:18, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
True. Watermarks will annoy some of our readers. - Naikiw 22:42, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I feel that watermarks don't really belong with wikis. This was something that made us unique from other fansites. Even if it had a RW in the image, that wouldn't really change anything. Almost everybody will agree that we have the best information and if i was a visitor of the site, i might be annoyed that I have to see this watermark. Judging from how the Jagex wiki has been developing, i really don't think it will be a problem. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 06:41, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

You should check it out more then. I have only seen 2 images that people have actually taken for the Jagex-made wiki. All other images are ours, and some people are even taking credit for making it themselves. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:18, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Slight support- After thinking this over, I'll support this idea as long as it is reversible. However, I'm worried that the process will be so bureaucratic that it's gonna take months to fully implement. Do it soon or don't do it at all. And a reflection on the jagex wiki, I feel like it's a censored wiki. You can't even edit the content of new releases, which is what people are most interested in. Their content is super fail, so I wouldn't visit a wiki without information I want... which is why i'm not so paranoid about the issue. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 00:11, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Legal or illegal, other fansites do it without any repercussions of any kind. So why let all these tools continue to upload images that our userbase took and put them on the Jagex wiki? Not watermarking them is just making it that much easier for them to continue to take from us. --Degenret01 07:38, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

"The example you provide is absolutely fine. Copyright is more about who created the content in the image rather than the image itself.
Allow me to clarify: 

If you were to take an image in RuneScape, post it to a site and add an addendum to say that all content in this image is copyright Jagex then all would be well. 

I hope this makes sense. " -Mod Twigs

So basically we can't do anything about the images as jagex legally own them. And legally we cannot add watermarks. Plus Runescape Wiki watermarks are useless anyway since they are also called the Runescape Wiki. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 08:04, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Rule 1. Never ever ever ask Jagex anything, they have proven that they will lie if the occasion suits them. Ask a lawyer, or no one. --Degenret01 09:42, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
I asked Jagex that and a new intern J-mod answered. Whether it's true or not isn't my issue. What my issue is is that all other fansites do this, like you said, without repercussions. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:18, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

RAGE and support ALL the things - In all honesty guys, I support any good idea you've got in mind. I've been browsing some random articles on Jagex's Wiki, and 70% of the information there is copied from here. --Makxtrl Talk 13:46, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I don't know if this was mentioned yet, but apparently there's no way to make new pages on the Jagex wiki (either that, or it's extremely difficult to find).  Tien  18:03, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

The ORSW runs off of JAMWiki, thus there is no create topic special page. You have to do it via url. Lame, but it's not even on the same engine as MediaWiki, looks similar in some aspects, but that's it. Right now just trying to find the ORSW location of this. So no public API or real parser functions. Makes life difficult on that wiki. Ryan PM 18:32, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I just read about making new pages (via url) in the wiki guide. That should've been the first place I looked. Woops.  Tien  19:18, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - How is a "watermark" exactly defined, per legal purposes? To me, there are many definitions of a watermark, whether it be a small image in the corner or an inlay in the background. It is subjective to your understanding of the word, unless there is a legal definition for it. Any Supreme Court cases we can review? Sorry if this was already brought up, I haven't taken the time to read this whole discussion. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 21:21, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Question - Have we actually confirmed (as in fully confirmed) what's legal or what's not? Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 10:58, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

How do we know? We are not lawyers. 13:59, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
Us not being lawyers is completely irrelevant here... Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 14:05, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
What I mean is you were asking the wrong person since none of us can give you a definite answer. 17:37, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion - What if we were to add an invisible watermark to each image (provided adding watermarks at all is legal) and made a bot or something to add it to all images and detect if the watermark is present? If we suspect that an image has been stolen, we could use the bot to determine if it was. That way we could prevent copyrights without an decrease in image quality.  Quest Icon Crest.png Guthix1110 Quest Icon Crest.png 15:42, November 29, 2011 (UTC) Jagex said that people can copy imags from other fansites and they won't be deleted, so an invisible watermark will not do any good. Withdrawing my suggestion. =<  Quest Icon Crest.png Guthix1110 Quest Icon Crest.png 01:21, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

"provided adding watermarks at all is legal" - leads back to my question (which still hangs in the air) Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 15:53, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
The whole point of the watermark is to deter others from using them because it is clear that the image was stolen. Jagex's wiki can legally take any and all fansite images and upload them on their wiki as they technically own the copyright for images derived from their client. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:42, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
But why msut we degrade our own content because of that? Can't we talk to jagex about this, telling them to add a message or something that copying things from other sites onto their wiki is agaisn't the rules? --Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 19:54, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
Taking content from other sites is already against their rules. Matt (t) 20:07, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
It's not degrading, look at the examples Ryan gave. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:30, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
I've seen those examples by Ryan, still look bad to me... Some readers may find it annoying. Naikiw 05:30, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Question - We are trying to deter the people who upload images on the new wiki from using our pictures. However, if those people know how to upload pictures, they're probably familiar with file history. Unless we find a way to add a watermark to every single image on-site including old revisions, what's stopping these people from just copying the old revision? They're smarter than you give them credit for. ʞooɔ 20:46, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

It is true that it may not stop it completly, but the vast majority of the people probably just click on the image, right click "save" and then upload it which takes no skill, and therefore, probably dont relise that we have a file history, the official wiki dosnt (.... well it only shows previous uploaders and thier size). also as jagex updates the game, the unwatermarked images will become out dated, thus they will have to rely on the watermarked ones, which can be removed for breaking the "advertising websites" ruleto my talk page! King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 00:01, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Question - How can you prove none of our images is from other web sites? I guess we can't put watermarks on those taken from the others right? Naikiw 05:45, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to tell/find out. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:44, November 30, 2011 (UTC)
You are not answering my question. You are now talking about watermarking all images (except icons) on this wiki, which means there is chance we would watermark an image from other web sites, and this should be allowed to happen.Naikiw 21:23, November 30, 2011 (UTC)
You asked how to prove it. Okay.. you look at the quality of the image & who uploaded. If you suspect it's stolen due to the quality and/or who uploaded, google it or look on other fansites. If there's a duplicate somewhere, it's easy to prove which was the original from the upload date. Nowhere in my answer to you did I mention watermarks, as that wasn't part of your question. We don't have any images from other websites. If an image from another fansite is uploaded, we delete it. If an image from the RS Game Guide is uploaded, we tag it for replacement. Watermarking images that don't belong to us won't happen. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:13, November 30, 2011 (UTC)
"We don't have any images from other websites." How can you be sure of that? Have you ever google every single image (117,391 in total) on this wiki as you suggested?
Actually, I don't think google can prove anything. If you found an identical image that could mean someone uploaded other website's image here, but it could also mean someone has stolen our image. Moreover, I don’t think google is an adequate tool for this job, as it can’t search the entire content of the internet, no one can.
I am pretty sure you would delete an image if you knew it’s taken from the others, but in fact it is impossible to know if every single image on this site is our original content. - Naikiw 22:31, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
Go find one that isn't then. You can use google simply by googling the subject of the image. If, while adding our watermarks, a stolen image is discovered, it'll be deleted. Problem solved. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:34, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
You are still avoiding my question – there’s no way ensure all of our 117,391 images uploaded onto this wiki over the past 6 years (which still exist) is our original content. So please let me repeat myself here.
  1. Google is not an adequate tool for this job, as it can’t search the entire content of the internet, in fact it is an impossible task.
  2. Carrying out 117,391 searches is impracticable.
  3. Even now, none of our 117,391 images is a stolen one (which I don’t believe), there will be one in the future. And that image may not be noticed as a stolen picture, since there is no way verify its origin and no one will check every single image uploaded. By going ahead with this proposal you are leaving a hole in the system, someday problem will arise. - Naikiw 23:46, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
What you are assuming is that there is a possibility of a stolen image appearing on this site, and because of that, we should not take any safeguards to protect our work (Yes, I understand there is discussion regarding whose work our images actually are, but for the the sake of my point, this will suffice.) Perhaps we should desysop all our admins, because there is a possibility they will go rogue, even if they are necessary to maintain the wiki. 222 talk 07:40, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
What I am doing now is trying to protect our work from being degraded by watermarks, and about desysoping admins, I won't talk about that since that is irrelevant to this discussion. The possibility of a stolen image appearing on this site is just one of the many reasons why adding watermarks shouldn't be implemented. Anyway you can't go ahead with this without addressing the legality of watermarks and achieving a consensus in this community. - Naikiw 11:26, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who you are, but again, I challenge you to find a "stolen" image. I don't like repeating myself, but again I'll say - if one is found to be stolen (which is obvious from the uploader & quality of the image), it will be deleted while adding watermarks. There is a reason why we send copyright breach emails and never receive any. Case closed. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:44, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
I'll chime in again, based on your logic, the possibility of a rogue admin destroying this site is just one the reasons why all admins should be desysopped. FYI, that was another one of my dreadful analogies. Also, we know we can't go ahead without consensus and whatnot, which is why we are discussing that right now, and being sidetracked by these claims of possible stolen images in the future. 222 talk 05:56, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
@Urbancowgurl777 So are you now excluding the possibility of any undetected stolen images on this site? As I said before since there is no way verify the origin of images uploaded, watermarks added on undetected stolen images is something more than likely. I don't think I have to find one to prove it to you, even there isn't one now, there will be one in the future.
@thebrains222 Do not try to draw the attention away from my question to something completely irrelevant. Admins are essential for maintaining the system, desysoping all of them will bring nothing but destruction to this site, I don't see watermarks are essential or the only solution. - Naikiw 00:42, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
Naikiw has good reason to be concerned about people uploading images from other fansites and them going undiscovered for a long period of time. Once upon a time, all of our skillcape images were stolen from They hung around for 8 months before I realised it and deleted them all. Granted, that was a time when perhaps we didn't take copyright as seriously as we do now, but that's still pretty bad. That said, I don't see how his argument about accidentally watermarking fansites images is in any way the "killer" argument against watermarks. He seems to believe that if we ever accidentally watermark a fansite image, we will all be thrown in jail, our reputation will be marred forever, and our fellow fansites will turn against us in a hate fueled orgy of revenge sodomy. That's absolutely not the case. What WILL happen is we will get a message from the fansite asking us to remove it, which we will. End of story. Think about it this way, if its been cool for us to accidentally host a stolen image (or group of 25 of them) why suddenly would it be a wretched thing to accidentally host a stolen image with a watermark? There's no appreciable difference. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:00, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - On the recent above discussion, I thought I'd just admit that once I stole an image from another website. Aye, I have broken the rules (back in 2007, before I was an admin!) I was going through articles that lack a map, and I managed to find one on another site. Their watermark was on top of a black area, so I simply but a black box over it and it was done.

On that point, what will stop users/J-mods from simply cropping our tiny little watermark out of the image? If the object the image portrays will not be covered by the watermark, then they will have no issue simply removing that part of the image, yes? Chicken7 >talk 12:26, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

That's already been addressed elsewhere *points in random directions*. Also, J-mods would never edit images. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 13:56, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
oic. *wanders off and reads all the text walls above* Chicken7 >talk 14:25, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - As a wikian I think what we should care more about is the quality of our content, so I think we should calm down and ask ourselves, is watermark the only solution, is there other way that won't lower the quality of our work or cause negative reactions from our readers/editors? I am not saying I have better ideals, but I think this is something we should think about. - Naikiw 00:42, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

On the legality of watermarks[edit source]

In a nutshell, watermarking the images is illegal.

First off, according to the terms of using images, "You must not use these images or [Jagex's] trademarks in a deliberately deceptive way". A watermark could be seen as an attempt to force attribution to us, rather than to Jagex.

Secondly, we do not own the right to make any alterations to the image. Jagex is the copyright holder, and Jagex alone has that power.

All the screenshots of the game on this wiki are allowed under the claim of fair use. We have no right to the images beyond using them for display purposes. Σ (talk) 04:34, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Jagex and Copyrighted Images[edit source]

New Idea - With all the stolen images on the new wiki, and adding a deletion tag doesn't help at all, and only emailing solves the problem, sending active emails from this wiki to them might solve the problem. Maybe adding a new page, RuneScape:Copyrighted Images, that can have all links that can be found.

Here is an example of what the page can look like, which can be found here.

It seems like a simple way to get the images off.

Support- as nom. (What would make it better if we had hundreds and hundreds of links in one email from [email protected] and at the bottom- U MAD?) Hair 03:31, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Question - how does emailing jagex help at all?, i tried once at there legal/copyright email, and nothing has been done, they own the copyright to their content after my talk page! King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 03:41, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - a) You need to send a proper Cease & Desist letter otherwise it'll be done on fairly low priority basis. b) Per lots of above images are property of Jagex and used by you under Fair use.... which actually wears a bit thin when you have so many of them... Jagex is never going to take down images which are purely screenshots of their game -- 16:36, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

My view

  1. That 99% of all images, all data values for NPCs and objects, all content from notes and all conversations stored on the Wikia wiki are available for the Wikia wiki use only under the assumption that it qualifies for fair use.
  2. That the number, size and quality of images on Wikia breaches "Amount & substantiality" arguments
  3. That the amount of text on the Wikia copied verbatim breaches "Amount & substantiality" arguments
  4. That the creation of the Wikia affects and continues to affect the copyright owner (Jagex)'s ability to exploit his or her original work
  5. That the continued hosting of images without stating that they are hosted under fair usage guidelines is at best in poor taste and at worst subversive and may potientially impact on the outcome of any decision
  6. That the original aim of the Wikia wiki was to superseed and profit from resources previously available on the Knowledge Base (note that Wikia is a profit-making business).
  7. That the Wikia wiki does not qualify as a transformative work compared to the original Knowledge Base

Result: That images created by Jagex and copied verbatim to the Wikia wiki and despite not being their content due to: 1,2,4,5 are now being supressed when reuploaded to the Jagex wiki, contrary to the actual copyright on the images themselves. -- 00:09, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

It may be the case that Jagex holds the copyrights to images from their game, but this is not the case for the majority of the text on this wiki, so I disagree with several of your points:
3. As far as I know, the only text copied verbatim from Jagex are the game updates. The NPC dialogue pages and Dungeoneering journal entries were removed for copyright reasons, and any text copied from Jagex's game guide to here is quickly replaced by our own original text.
4. How does the wiki negatively (you didn't say negatively but I assume that's what you meant) affect Jagex's ability to exploit their original work (namely their game)?
5. Cook mentioned above that he is in the process of adding fair use statements to images. Of course it would be ideal if they were already there, but this is already more than other fansites have done.
6. It is absurd to suggest that the resources on this wiki were all previously available on the Knowledge Base.
7. You seem to be suggesting that this wiki should be considered a derivative work of the Knowledge Base, but I don't know what the basis for this is? They concern the same topic, but they have no more in common than the Britannica and Encarta articles on World War 2.
My view is neither other fansites, not Jagex's new wiki, have gone to as much effort as this wiki to ensure that their content respects copyright. Stewbasic 19:19, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
For 3, we have permission to post dialogue and transcript pages now so it's kind of invalid. Also, it would help if you hadn't posted this on your Jagex wiki page if you wanted to remain anonymous. --cqm talk 10:29, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

It is confirmed that jagex does not care about image plagiarism, as evidenced by this edit: [14], this seems to be the response to other claims of plagiarism too, REMOVE THE CLAIM! -Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 19:14, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to return to my old refrain and challenge the idea that we should have a discussion about the legality of an image proposal. None of us is a lawyer, and so none of us is qualified to actually argue about the ins and outs of copyright law. Particularly when our track record on legality is uh, sketchy. (wszx) 23:14, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Jagex's Stance,279,984,63416735,189,311997221,highlight,#188, Discuss. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png

Thats like saying if I take a picture of your car, you own the copyright to the picture. Completely idiotic, but hey, its Jagex. If that really is how the law is, though (and I have a hard time believing it is) then the law is wrong. 3rd age farcaster 01:33, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good comparison at all. You couldn't, for instance, take a photo of a photographer's photo and claim it to be yours. We simply don't own the images. --Henneyj 04:08, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
But we're not. If we took a picture that was exactly pixel for pixel the same as one of theirs, then ok. As no two moments in Runescape are alike, this is impossible to do. Sure, we are taking pictures of Jagex's game, but very much is dependent on what the photo taker chooses. If I were to take a picture of banana trees in Runescape and sell it, chances are people wouldn't also buy a picture of Darkmyre for the same amount. Both are pictures of Jagex's game, and yet, because of the artists (my) choices, one picture is profitable and the other isn't. Therefore, I should be able to keep the money and the copyright. 3rd age farcaster 01:13, December 8, 2011 (UTC)
The point of my example was simply to show that it's not as simple as your comparison was suggesting. However, the issue of copyright is relevent to every graphic in the game, so would apply to any manifestation of them. I think the reality of the situation though is that images were nominated for deletion on the official wiki on copyright grounds, when the real reason to do so was "that's a bit heartless". They were bound to correct such an argument. --Henneyj 23:40, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
Runescape is, or if it is not, should be like property. Falador and Jagex's headquarters are, or should, be seen as the same: both properties of Jagex. I can drive by and take a picture of Jagex's HQ, and own the copyright. So, why shouldn't I be able to do the same for Falador? Please, point me to a difference between these two situations. 3rd age farcaster 02:48, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comment- I'm just a random reader of this wiki, and as such im not too familiar with how everything works. Is it possible that an invisible watermark is put on every single image in this wiki, and this watermark contains a URL to the page describing the images history on this site? Thus, if they copied the real wiki's images and put it on the other one, Jagex would see it as advertisement and thus it would HAVE to be deleted. Then it becomes jagex's problem dealing with the deleting. I suppose you guys could get a bot to do it, and if it messes with the pngoptimisationbot ,i guess there may be a way for you to stop it for now until all images have a url on them? Then if you need to perhaps change the way the optimisation bot works to suit the new images. The bot is reaching files which start with "z" and perhaps you could disable it after that? Sure it would take weeks for the watermarking but its better than having your content copied for years to that blasphemous false wiki.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I've never seen such a thing, I doubt it's possible. --Henneyj 04:08, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm Nice food for thought, but I think that's a bit away wih the fairies. But I'm not an expert here, so I suggest you ask someone who is. Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 10:52, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dragon Kin aka Battleben. Buzz (Talk#P ) 11:17, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Jagex will remove all of our images if we report it through the wiki report system, according to this. In some ways this contradicts what other mods have said, and I wonder if they know their rules, but we can use this as proof that they will delete the images, and in that case, I now oppose adding watermarks, as the images will/should be removed when we request it. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 04:55, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

That post doesn't mean anything. Its the exact opposite of what was said 2 pages prior. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:51, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
Mod Ste T's post got hidden, so I guess we should ignore that. It seems pretty clear from the next few mod posts that their official stance is they have no issue with images being taken from here. Stewbasic 18:05, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
Pathetic.. Get it together, Jagex. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:07, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
Flip-flops, contradictions, and intentional ambiguity are all too common when dealing with Jagex. While it is pathetic, don't hold your breath waiting for them to work it out. 3rd age farcaster 01:22, December 8, 2011 (UTC)
Yeh, without saying the words "Mod Ste T was wrong", they went about as close to that as they will, so we can just ignore it, and wonder if Jagex will ever sort out the wiki. Also back to Support for watermarks. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:01, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support watermarks - Unless Jagex decides to stop taking a piss on all their dedicated fansites, the alternative to watermarks is having each and every one of our images stolen, one by one, and used somewhere else with zero credit given to any of us. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 08:05, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support watermarks - I think, anyways. If this is what is necessary to keep Jagex off our images, then it is what must be done. I wish we had another choice, but this is better then being robbed of our hard work. 3rd age farcaster 01:22, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Jagex's Stance -

You may take an image from another website and post it on the Wiki as long as it is RuneScape related, this means that it will not be deleted as long as it follows the Jagex Wiki Policies.
— Mod Aug

Ie there just saying "we dont care, just go on and copy all the fansite pics that you can" I personnally think we should go on and do the watermarking we do have some (rough) consensus to do so, and the longer we wait, the more pics that will be copied, especially considering that it will probably take a few weeks (with a bot) to implement to my talk page! King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 03:41, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

How many times do i have to tell you? Watermarks are not only illegal and ugly, but pointless anyway! THEY SHARE THE SAME NAME AS US. WATERMARKS ARE USELESS. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 08:31, December 8, 2011 (UTC)
Shut up, stop ranting and read the thread proposals properly first. We are not idiots, we can see that they are called the RuneScape wiki and will obviously design a watermark that doesn't say "RuneScape Wiki". Also, you have no legal proof they are actually illegal, and ugliness is highly subjective. 222 talk 08:54, December 8, 2011 (UTC)
If we're not gonna put "RuneScape Wiki", then what are we going to put? "RuneScape"? "Wiki"? Chicken7 >talk 09:20, December 8, 2011 (UTC)
What happened to the little "RW" in our colours. 222 talk 10:07, December 8, 2011 (UTC)
Or [[File:Link Button.png]]? Ronan Talk 13:22, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

I really think a lot of you are reacting a bit too much towards ownership. When you make a image for this wiki and put it online, you make it public, for the community, to be used by the community. The real value of The Runescape Wiki is not in the thousands of pictures that we have, but in the years of knowledge which results in detailed how-to-guides and all the additional info you will ever need. Jagex is years behind because you can't build a wiki in a day. Back to the topic of watermarking, I think it's only feasible to do this to Maps and other images that took more than just greenscreening the background away. There is no real use in putting a watermark on a screen that one can easily duplicate. --MarkMJB 10:48, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per what I said on this thread ages ago (should be somewhere in the middle O_o) Bluefire2Talk edit my sigOil4 I made this 10:50, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Reiterate - This is a terrible idea. I cannot stress that enough. It's legally ambiguous and logistically difficult, and devalues our content significantly. The amount of copied images is slowing down since the earlier hubbub and the people on the wiki tend to be against copying this kind of thing. We also are forgetting that unless Wikia enables some PHP solution (which they probably won't do, and even if they do it will affect all images), people can just bypass all of the work we put into watermarks by going to the file history page! Come on, we are better than this. ʞooɔ 21:43, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should add that i only support watermarks if an easy solution becomes avaliable. Obviously putting them on every single image by hand is infeasible, especially given the file history thingy. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 08:58, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
The only two options I see are either using the file history or some sort of PHP solution that Wikia probably wouldn't allow and would be on every single image. Even if we miraculously found a workable solution, I still don't think making our images look bad is a worthy tradeoff for stopping a few image copiers. ʞooɔ 09:50, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Watermarks - From looking around the Jagex Wiki, they have just about no content, and the content they do have is very low quality. When they copy our images they might get something purty, but it just looks copy pasted on their articles because of how poor their articles are. Their wiki is not a threat to us. It just violates the one thing that we as fansites have held as a rule of respect for each other, not using each other's images. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:17, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Finally, we got ourselves a logical explanation. Thank you ZamorakO o --Makxtrl Talk 14:58, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
But, like you said its disrespectful. A low blow. The very fact that they call it the "Runescape wiki" when a Runescape wiki already exists is as good as a declaration of war. Add to that their contradictions and allowance of copied images on their wiki, I don't believe we should be showing "mercy" because the rest of their wiki sucks. 3rd age farcaster 20:17, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - As someone who hasn't spent any time on either wiki recently, this wiki is far superior. Forgetting for a moment that the images here are almost all of an incredibly high quality, the actual content here is more in-depth, and therefore more helpful. While people using images without attribution is a thorn in everyone's side, it doesn't actually matter when you take into account that this wiki is more user-friendly and far more useful. Let's use the pages on Barrows as a comparison. On the Jagex wiki, search "Barrows" and there is a results page. The page called "Barrows" has nothing on it except a table with the brothers' names and abilities, and the rewards. There is also, at the time of writing, several weird red links which lead to a page called "null". The actual information on the activity is on a different article - "Barrows (Members)". On this page, the strategy for each combat style takes up 2 lines, total (and for some reason, everything is a subheading of Magic, which looks rather odd), and the strategy is incredibly vague. The Magic section doesn't recommend any spells, the Ranged section doesn't mention any suggested weapons and none of the sections suggest equipment setups. On the other hand, this wiki has an entire page dedicated to Barrows strategies, with each combat style taking up multiple sections (I'm not going to bother counting lines). Basic equipment setups AND alternatives to some high-level items are given, with multiple approaches for each method. I can predict without even looking that quest guides here will be far more detailed, and as someone mentioned above, the TzTok-Jad page at Jagex's wiki just says "In the Fight Caves, you can has fire cape for killing," whereas the page here takes up a great deal of space detailing how to fight it. The Jagex wiki will most probably not be a real competitor to this site for a very long time - it won't be easy to catch up to a 6-and-a-half-year head start - and editors as a whole here are better versed in editing. In addition, this wiki has the benefit of the AbuseFilter extension to prevent vandalism. Copying anything from this wiki to Jagex's is downright lazy and disrespectful, but images should not really be as much of a worry as text. I am aware that Jagex will remove copied text, so that shouldn't bother us too much. Copied images are a nuisance, but if Jagex refuses to do anything about them, there isn't a lot that can be done here - but then, will images from this wiki really make the Jagex wiki into a competitor?

Their wiki may be official, but this one is a whole lot better. I highly doubt it'll be needed, but good luck overcoming this latest "obstacle". Real Mad 18:09, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Let them copy the images. Let them suffer SEO ranking. After pulling some dust under a very large rug, we should stop and start cleaning up. The watermarking of images didn't turn out what I thought it would become, instead it's just a bitching match between two viewpoints. I do not like this and, as said to others, never intended this to pursue a comment I made. This might be the only time I think consensus shouldn't be done on this forum since this affects everyone even more than usual. We, those of us on this thread, cannot get enough viewpoints on this issue from only twenty to thirty individuals and make the decision to obliterate hours and years of work in order to protect ourselves. Any real player would know what is being done and will tend to stick away from copy-cats. Even users of the ORSW want to use their own images and not a fansite image. We only need to protect our text. Nothing more, nothing less. End it, swiftly and quickly, not to mention the legality of all of this as previously mention by numerous users. Ryan PM 19:13, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I still support watermarks, i feel like they can be handled well such that its not a big deal. But I also agree that despite there being a rough consensus to implement watermarks here, its not enough to actually go through with this huge change. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:46, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - After a long search I finally found a page on Jagex' wiki saying that no content should be copied from any other website. Meaning that despite the images copyright belonging to Jagex, they forbid their players from copying the images from Wikia. The players using the new wiki are after all not the copyright holders either. Talk to meTHARKONMy hiscores 11:16, December 14, 2011 (UTC) Talk to meTHARKONMy hiscores 11:26, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
see post 9 Quest Icon Crest.png Guthix1110 Quest Icon Crest.png 14:46, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
Way to contradict themselves. Talk to meTHARKONMy hiscores 19:32, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
Maybe they don't consider pictures to be info. In any case their stance is made clear in that forum post and now here also. Stewbasic 19:46, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Question - What are the negatives of watermarks? What I seen so far is that they would be alot of work, and yet, can't a bot do it? I've also seen people say you could look through the histories to find un-marked versions - this is contradicted by the fact that we remove names from images. Why remove names if people can "just look into histories" and see the previous, name-including version? Did I just destroy oppose-ers case, or is there something I'm missing? 3rd age farcaster 03:35, December 18, 2011 (UTC) 03:30, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

You didn't address the biggest reason for opposing - aestetically compromising our images with watermarks. Also, the "look into the history" argument still stands, because unlike someone's name which no one really cares about being in the history, an unwatermarked version would be taken by image thieves, totally negating any benefits of watermarking. 05:52, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
The above pretty much hits the nail on the head. It just looks bad, and it ain't worth it. ʞooɔ 06:00, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Note - If anyone cares, I'd just like to note something about Google search results. If you use Google to search for "RuneScape Wiki" and hit the little "+1" next to it, it will encourage Google to keep it higher on the results list for longer. (davelopo) 21:11, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Section break[edit source]

Totally radically proposal - Hi guys, been a while. Was just curious how things were going and stumbled upon this discussion, still going on. Firstly, I strongly oppose the concept of watermarks of any kind on images, as they stifle the artistic concept of the image and seem very controversial (what isn't, I suppose?). The Jad page example was pointed out a bit earlier. We have a comprehensive page on Jad with strategies, information, and whatnot, whereas Jagex's wiki has an image and infobox. We have EVERYTHING the Jagex wiki has in that article and a heck of a lot more. I'm willing to wager that applies to pretty much every other page.

Which brings me to my proposal: Why don't we stop worrying about some image copiers (especially since the way it's going, we won't achieve anything) and simply let their wiki die? All the time we spend arguing on this issue, browsing the Jagex wiki for cheap copy-paste work is time we aren't spending edit our wiki, which is vastly better than Jagex's. Lengthy break from RuneScape aside, I had difficulty finding the link to Jagex's wiki, and we're still number uno on the search engine results (don't expect that to change, either).

To sum that up, let Jagex's Frankenstein die, let's move our focus back on improving our wiki. With love, Hofmic Talk 01:29, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's nothing to worry about regarding the other wiki, especially with all the restrictions the Jagex staff have imposed. Smithing (talk | contribs) 10:03, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with Ajr and disagree with a nearly valid opinion by 3rd Age Farcaster. First, the difference between photographing Jagex HQ and Falador is that Jagex HQ is an ordinary office building which may be photographed from a public place, but Falador may only be photographed from within a private place, governed by Jagex's contractual dealings, and it constitutes much creative and stylistic work which Jagex holds the rights to. I came to this conclusion after reading a page at the World Intellectual Property Organization's website.

In agreement with Ajr, watermarks are copyright infringement. Without Jagex's approval, photographing or in any other way graphically reproducing the creative work that makes up RuneScape is the exclusive right of the copyright holder and those who are authorized by the copyright holder as explained in Section 106 of US Copyright Code. Furthermore, the addition of a watermark constitutes a derivative of the original work, and posting the image to a website is distribution of the reproduced copy. Both of these actions are also prohibited unless authorized by the copyright holder as explained in Section 106. Since Jagex's authorization only covers the photographing or "reproduction" and online posting or "distribution" of their copyrighted material while specifically prohibiting any alterations or "derivatives," I can conclude that it would be copyright infringement to add watermarks to the images of the (real) RuneScape Wiki.

With all of that written, I do have a proposal which might be implemented to protect the graphical content that some of our editors do not believe to be important without affecting the upstanding quality of our work. Please visit this photo at Flickr. Any photo at Flickr would suffice, but I'm providing a link for convenience, and I like dogs. Anyway, if you right-click on the image, "Save image as..." is not one of the options. In fact, it provides a copyright notice. While it's ridiculously easy to screenshot the image and crop it to post wherever, it would force potential copiers through the same quality standards that our own editors fulfill, cropping and trimming a JPEG into the graphical content that fills our wiki. If the lazy editor refuses to crop and trim the image, the captured background would suffice as a watermark on the (fake) RuneScape Wiki while not affecting the quality of our own. If the lazy editor fulfills the same quality process as one of our own, then I suppose it isn't really an issue. If the lazy editor is intelligent enough to read the website's source code, he'll come across the actual image, but all security systems have their flaws, and I believe that this one would satisfy the majority of worries should it be possible. Unless our editors would push the fact that this (fake) RuneScape Wiki editor did not have to find the subject in-game and position the camera, I would call this the solution to our issue presented so far. Hopefully it's possible with our technology.

Merry Christmas. Leftiness 07:47, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

What about for our image editors? Transparency and image size would be lost in a screenshot if we cannot save the image. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 07:59, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
Well they can just look at the pages source the can't they? Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 16:30, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this concept. While I am more than skilled enough to grab the direct link from the source, I would loath doing that and many editors have no idea how to do that. You'd have to either be proficient with HTML to find the link in the source code (you can't right click inspect the element, after all), or you'd need proficiency with your browser to find a list of resources the page uses and find the correct image (chrome's resources tab of the web inspector, for example), or else you'll be taking a screenshot, losing transparency, and have to crop the file. While it would keep out lazy folks from copying pictures, it would just be a major annoyance to the legitimate users. The pros don't outweigh the cons. I'm still in favour of just letting Jagex's monster die. After all, the majority of players know that this wiki is superior by far, and those who don't know about us will stumble across us the moment they try and google "runescape wiki". Again, I propose a wonderful stance of "no action". Stand on the sidelines and watch the Jagex wiki die. Hofmic Talk 18:04, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
Umm, I suppose I'd be one of those editors who doesn't know how to get the page's source. ^-^ At first I was going to support this idea but it sounds like it'd be way too much trouble for legit image editors.. ): sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:15, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
Just make it so you have to be logged in to save the image. 03:02, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
Then people would just make accounts to get our images. There is a quite simple solution though. Just add that customised right click screen for everyone, and then users could install a simple script to be able to view the image anyway. Only people who are really familiar with this wiki will be able to find the script, and people who do need to be able to get the image, can install the script to be able to download the image much more easily. One more problem is though, that right clicking the image on the article itself and then opening it in a new tab does go to the source url of the image. If we would add this change, we would have to deal with that too. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:42, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
I proposed that a Flickr-style protection be implemented on article pages, preventing right-click "Save as...," and I also expect that it would prevent access to the image page as it does on Flickr. As is already noted, such protection may already be ignored by checking the page's source code or using page resources tools built into certain browsers; Chrome was specifically mentioned. However, if such a script could be written to ignore the protection for those using it, I expect that the combined protection and script would make a fine deterrent to image thievery, of which we assume the majority is right-click "Save as...," while maintaining the convenience for our editors and the quality of the images hosted on our wiki. We could also use the space where Flickr writes "All rights reserved" to write "RuneScape (C) 1999-2011 Jagex Ltd. All rights reserved. Used with permission." Leftiness 21:56, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I thought the statement that the majority of image thievery happens by simple "Save as..." in the right click menu was probably accurate. As such, I figured that making it impossible to do so would prevent at least a sizable amount. However, having been away from the back-end of a wiki for quite some time, I did not think about the image pages. If a Flickr-style protection were implemented on the article page, I believe that the file's page could be left as it is, and the action would still prevent thievery to some extent, allowing editors and intelligent, lazy thieves to gain easy access to a "Save as..." option. Maybe that extent is useless. At any rate, I'm not even certain if such protection is technologically feasible given our circumstances as a website limited by both MediaWiki software and Wikia. Leftiness 06:19, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this happens a lot. Someone comes in and declares something is either legal or illegal, with links to an actual section of the law, no less! But are you a lawyer? A law student? Have you ever studied copyright law, or any law, for that matter? Is there any reason to take your opinion any more seriously than an illiterate person being read the passage in question and then saying "well sounds te me like..."? I don't mean to insult you but unless you've seriously studied law, discussing interpretations of sections of code is no more fruitful than preparing for heart surgery by googling it. Simply put, your opinion doesn't matter to jagex, to wikia, or to a courtroom. So this isn't really a fruitful area of discussion. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:58, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I still strongly oppose the concept of limiting the ability to edit images in any way. Yes, it could help stop image thieves, but would stop too many legitimate editors anyway. If the "protection" was only applied to the article pages, sooner or later, the image thieves would just realize they could copy from file pages too. Anyone with a nickel of knowledge on wikis know how file pages work, anyway. And even if there was some script to bypass it for frequent editors, we have loads of people who start out with an image modification. I've seen plenty of people I've never heard of upload a new version of an image, and if they found they couldn't easily access the image, they'd likely have quit before they even started. I know I would have. Thus, to make my stance clear, I strongly oppose any approach that sacrifices part of our wiki just to try and stop another. I value our wiki far higher than Jagex's crap, and hurting it just to try and hurt their puny excuse for wiki is not the right approach. Hofmic Talk 06:42, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Image theivery? Is that what that is? I just thought that Jagex's wiki couldn't get any worse. Oh hoh! I was wrong! The Jagex wiki is just a poorly run, horribly organized site that is terrible for the community and is getting worse. I predict it will die in under a year. Image theivery is on their worries list? They should look at us for advice. This wiki is 150x better than theirs and the combonation of Jagex's fails and our improvments that number is growing. Now Image theivery could be a problem but if they had better security and better moderators and admins they could eliminate their problem easily. Adding images should be something that anybody can do. As long as you have good wiki mods that are on top of vandalism 24/7 then Image theivery shouldn't be a problem. Zaros symbol.png Antistaggy Zamorak godsword.png 13:20, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

um what? Which wiki are you talking about for the good admins and "mods"? what are moderators on wikis? ajr 23:11, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
With moderators he probably means the JMod admins on jagexwiki, I'd assume JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:45, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

20 days later - This is a request for mental closure. I opposed their new wiki and supported watermarks, but looking now... Seems they average 1 edit every 10 minutes or so (if even, with hours of no edits sometimes), and most legit edits are by 4 or 5 returning users who spam categories/templates/small 5-word sentences to make up for their lack of content. All other edits are in their Community space which serve no purpose to the wiki. Just take a look at this. Some people keep saying "it's still new, give it time", and though I originally believed that too, I don't think anything will happen in time at this point.

I think we should all put our minds at ease that even if they do steal our images, no one is viewing them because, frankly, their wiki freaking sucks man. We should move on from this extremely lengthy round-robin discussion and focus more on our own wiki. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:13, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support closure - The length of this document defends it well against the risk of being read. Ronan Talk 18:27, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support closure - Pictures don't make an encyclopaedia. In the case where the Jagex wiki does become a major threat, a minute probability at that, then start worrying about improvement. Lets face it, unless they make it user friendly/work properly they aren't going to be competition any more than the KB was reliable. Just keep an eye out for copying content over, but for the most part the regular editors there seem to be doing that anyway. --cqm talk 10:58, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I hesitate to call it a retrospective (lol), but looking at where that wiki currently stands, trying to distance myself as far as possible from obvious bias, their wiki has been unsuccessful. Their software is poor, their delegation of authority is nonexistent, and their activity continues to decline. I must say I'm disappointed that they have not at least given us a run for our money, because it would have forced us to get off of our perch and be creative and innovative for once. I have a hunch that sooner or later the 2-3 people who are actively maintaining it will go away, and any progress will cease. I am frustrated that Jagex decided to take this route instead of working with the fansites it apparently supports, but luckily this is strengthening the bonds between fansites.

We still have some things to worry about, namely SEO (they have the advantage of being, but more than anything search enging ranking relies on content, which in their case is missing. Right now the only official wiki pages that threaten us for first place are ones written out by the moderators beforehand, which are equivalent to the old KB pages, and at times those were above us as well. A month and a half in, our traffic is hanging about where we normally would expect it to be (see this for more information; there is a clear downturn around the time the wiki came out, but looking more closely you'll find it's a seasonal decline that we've had in previous years, as do most gaming sites.) Our activity in terms of editors and edits is stable if not rising; we are in a good position to continue our dominance.

Long story short, we're winning. Let's shut the lid on this. ʞooɔ 11:35, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - The RuneScape Wiki has decided that the RuneScape Wiki is not a threat. On a serious note, there is no consensus to implement image watermarking, or prevent specific groups of users from downloading the Wiki's images. 222 talk 11:32, January 3, 2012 (UTC)