Does the prohibition about third party text in a description forbid quoting source material?
I recently discovered a phenomenal new mural in my neighborhood. When I submitted it I used the QR code on it to identify the title and artist, and for the description I quoted a portion of the artist's own statement about her work, as such:
Artist's description: At sunset, ice and sea meet in warm embrace, whispering words only they can hear. New life springs forth and creatures draw near, [...]
Similarly, I have seen a lot of historical plaques where the description is an exact transcription of the text that is on the plaque.
Elsewhere there is a discussion where someone suggests that this should be rejected because it violates the copy-paste criterion. I understand why Niantic does not want submitters to use third-party text in their submissions. Niantic, is this rule intended to also prohibit first-party authoritative material about a work such as an artist's statement or the text of a plaque? Is it acceptable to use the artist's own words as the description for art? The guidelines clearly state a preference for official titles... does this also apply to an official description?
@NianticGiffard @NianticTintino ... can we get an official statement from Niantic on this, please?
Comments
Keep in mind there was no mention of any QR code in the nomination. Only copy pasted text that when googled are found word for word on a website.
I have seen some snippets of this debate and to be honest I agree with you that an artist's statement about their work is fair game for a description. But I don't think that it's clear where the boundary falls for the "don't copy and paste text" rule. If a local hotspot business has a nice blurb about themselves on their website should that be allowed as a description? Is it ok to copy the text on a historic info plaque into a description? On its face, this requirement seems clear but in reality it is not.
Ineligible text or description
Title and/or description seems copied and pasted from other sources, includes emojis, tags, or personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses.
Source: https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/help/rejection-criteria
I think we have an official stance.
4. Ineligible text or description
Title and/or description seems copied and pasted from other sources [...]
https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/?s=wayspot-eligibility&f=rejection-criteria&p=all
Official titles are encouraged. Copying a full paragraph to include in a description is not the same as using the title given by the creator.
I would imagine that the whole "don't use copy-pasted text" is because of copyright issues. So it could depend if the direct quote from the artist is under some sort of copyright or not. I can understand why Niantic would want to blanket-ban all copy-pasted quotes rather than specify copyright issues since the former is simpler to understand. A direct quote would probably only be good if it was famously known or obviously public domain/fair use.
I have definitely quoted plaques on things, but I haven't done it as the only thing I say in my description. I say something about what the object is and any particular importance, and then I'll quote the plaque, or a portion of it.
Recording the actual text from the object should be a non-issue. Especially if it's in another language and the submission happens to be in English, for example, it's nice for English readers to know what it says.
I would think if you briefly said what the mural was, maybe when it was painted, and then went on to say something like, "this is what the artist [state artist name] says about it," that would be a great description. You're giving credit for those words rather than passing something off as your own, which is really the whole point to the "writing it with your own words" guideline. It doesn't (shouldn't) violate anything.
I'm sure someone will disagree. 😂 But I would absolutely 5* that description.
Shouldn't this be in https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/categories/criteria-clarifications?
Edit: Perhaps that way we can request it be actually documented into the guidelines.
EDIT: Superceded by @NianticGiffard post below. Original post for reference only.
I don't know if it's how we're supposed to review, but for cases where the text is obviously copied directly from a publicly displayed plaque or sign that is part of the nomination, I give it a lower rating for title/description rather than reject it outright. Similarly, if it's a quote from a source related to the nomination and you give an attribution for your quote, I likely wouldn't reject it (and I probably wouldn't lower the rating for that, either).
It's only cases where the text is copied from a source outside of the object itself and completely unattributed that I reject the nomination entirely, like those "I'm going to copy the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article here" nominations.
(Frankly, I wouldn't mind rejecting nominations where the description is copied directly from the sign since it's a pretty pointless description, but it's so common that I'd want specific official guidance from Niantic before doing so.)
@NianticGiffard @NianticTintino this is some more context on @Hosette-ING's question:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/WayfarerGlobalReviewers/posts/3056569927997322
Essentially, I agree with Hosette what the apparent INTENTION of the "no third-party text" rule is: don't get our favourite games' developer sued for spreading copyright infringement. However, what the facebook posts' major complaint is, by definition, wrong:
But... text that an author has publicly posted that is directly relevant to the wayspot submission? (ie. an "artist's statement") That would be not qualify as "3rd party", and is information that said artist INTENDS to be public. It's essentially "source material", and it would be entirely and legally "fair use" to quote such text, so long as correct attribution has been made.
The problem is its an entire legal quagmire.
While I agree with you in principle that it would essentially be "source Material" an artist can copyright their own description for their own work, the same way certain drinks/ food manufacturers have their own descriptions which are copyrighted, KFC being one which instantly springs to mind.
Theres no way, without looking into each individual submission of a copied description from the internet, if the description is infact a copyrighted item or if its been copied from a source that allows or doesn't the sharing of its prose.
Im unaware of this particular case, but it is entirely possible that an artist so proud of their work decided to copyright their own description / definition of their work as well.
From Niantics POV it makes things a lot simpler to just give a blanket "no copying and pasting items from another source" to save them any possibility of being sued.
@Theisman-ING Yes, certainly a legal quagmire.
Here's another way to think about this: Is the text part of the candidate itself? In the case of the author's title for artwork then absolutely the answer is yes. In the case of the text on a plaque or monument then again, 100% the answer to that question is yes.
Is an artist's statement fundamentally a part of the art? That question is slightly less clear, but speaking as someone who has written artist's statements for her work before I come down on the side of yes. The artist's statement is fundamentally a part of the public presentation of the artwork. I believe that using the artist's own words as the wayspot description is the best way to represent the spirit of the artwork and the intent of the artist.
If you can get Niantic to make an exceptions for scenarios like this, great!... But as the rules are currently written, they are not allowed.
I get what you're saying and to a certain extent I agree with you.
However (hands up who didn't see that word coming on the horizon) in the UK at least artwork is legally defined as and im paraphrasing a bit here, "graphic works, photographs, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality"
An Artists statement would be its separate own literary work and have its own literary copyright attached to it.
So from a UK perspective at least your question about an artists statement being part of an artwork has been answered and legally said to be two separate things.
That means if you were to copy an artist's statement verbatim you may be breaching copyright, fair use clauses etc not withstanding.
I'll hold my hands up and say I dont know anything about the US equivalent but I'd be surprised if there hasn't been some kind of legal definition made one way or the other for that as well.
To be fair to Niantic and their blanket ban, I cant blame them from wanting to keep well clear of any possible copyright infringements at all, especially considering how complicated and costly the issue can get.
Similarly, I have seen a lot of historical plaques where the description is an exact transcription of the text that is on the plaque.
I have seen plenty of mentions of XM or other Ingress related terms in descriptions. With how much you flaunt your knowledge of Wayfarer, you should know better than most that what exists within the games currently is not in any way a proper representation of what meets current criteria.
I understand why Niantic does not want submitters to use third-party text in their submissions.
It doesn't seem like you understand this if you copy and pasted third-party text into your nomination, and are then asking for clarification on it.
Furthermore, "official" titles are something that exist. Official descriptions do not. A plaque, for example, might describe something one way, but that is not the only way to describe something. Your nomination should be in your own words.
Lets take a dive into the guidelines though:
The following screenshots are from Niantic's content guidelines on the Wayfarer website:
Niantic encourages "official titles", but does not encourage official descriptions. In fact, plagiarizing a description falls within the domain of the rejection criteria on the Wayfarer website:
The real tidbit I want to point out though, is that the Description Guidelines specifically state that you must keep in mind the Terms of Service when providing descriptions. Section 5 of the Terms of Service goes into detail of Content and Content Rights, and specifically, Section 5.2 dives into User Content. Ive screenshotted 5.0, 5.1, and 5.2, but mainly lets take a look at section 5.2:
I am not going to go line by line on how many of these rules you break within section 5.2 when plagiarizing a description because it breaks so many of them. You do not hold the sole rights that are required for you to submit a copied description to Niantic according to the Terms of Service, nor do you have the ability to grant Niantic the right to reproduce a work that isn't your own.
What you should have done in your description is paraphrase the information you found, putting it into your own words. You could even say in the description that there is a QR code on the corner of the mural that can be scanned to learn more about it, without having to plagiarize. You should have then included the link to the official source in your supplemental.
You did not follow the Content Guidelines or the Terms of Service, and your description blatantly met rejection criteria.
Thanks for writing in, @Hosette-ING! Please keep in mind official titles if known can be used but copy-pasting a paragraph from a third-party source should be considered ineligible.
That being said, you need to adhere to the Title and Description Guidelines mentioned on our help article pages. Additionally, we have made the necessary changes to the description.
Were we to take Niantic’s instructions verbatim, we could not identify anything associated with Washington (a real name), couldn’t name the Lincoln Memorial, could not even point out Jim Morrison’s tombstone.
With no real names permitted in the title or description, we are also prohibited from attributing anything to an artist or author. No real names or code names means no Banksie, even.
So many places are named after people. What are we to do?
Niantic pays lawyers, but they can’t make them think.
Real names ARE permitted.
“Don’t submit titles that contain real names, initials, code names...”
“Don’t submit descriptions that contain real names, initials….”
I’m sure this is not what they meant, but it is precisely what they said.
You are missing "credit the artist"
Thank you for clarifying @NianticGiffard. Can I request that this be added as a specific rejection reason in a future Wayfarer update? As it is, I believe the only really fitting rejection reason is "Other Rejection Reason," which does not give the submitter very much useful information.
"...or personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses."
Give high ratings to...Titles and descriptions that include the artist’s name (for murals, statues, etc.)
If you think the guides are unclear, by all means start a new discussion to seek clarification. In this thread, we had clarification, and the OP still doubled down that in her case it didn't matter.
1*> text quality> title or description
Title and Description
Rate the quality of the nomination’s title and description based on the following criteria.
Give high ratings to:
https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/help/reviewing-a-wayspot-nomination
Censorship is fun, i posted this response in the Facebook group to help clarify misunderstandings... The post has been removed.
Remember when Casey got bleeped for posting/quoting the Official naughtiness policy? They never fixed anything. We can’t use the words in the policy in discussing what is or isn’t permitted.
I wish the only words in Niantic’s filter were the various forms and tenses of censor.
Not sure what that has to do with any of this, I'm talking about a Facebook group refusing to accept criteria or clarifications.
I’m sorry you were censored. Censorship sucks here, too.
The Title and Description Guidelines do not mention the artist when they instruct us what not to do.
That is an option, but as I recall, the description of this rejection reason in Wayfarer and the feedback received by the submitter for this rejection reason are centered around the title/description being not relevant to the submission, which is not the reason I would choose when rejecting something for containing relevant, but third-party, description text. That's why I would like a specific rejection reason for third-party text (similar to how we have one for third-party photo).