@NianticGiffard So, to clarify, the creator of art is a third-party source?
Would this also extend to text that is written on the submission itself? If the artist had painted the words onto the wall rather than a reference to them would it be acceptable to quote them as part of the description?
You really should not need further clarification. You blatantly copy and pasted a wall of text from an external website, whether or not the text on that website was written by an artist. The constant topic changes, deflections, and whataboutisms do not pertain to the issue of your copy and pasted description from a website. Not to mention that a primary purpose of the website that you copied from is to promote an upcoming augmented reality app, not just to showcase artwork. This app could very likely be a direct competitor to the AR platforms Niantic is building and result in litigation that could effect Niantic's entire Wayspot network. You need to face the reality that you were wrong to the point that Niantic blatantly told you that you need to begin to adhere to the rules, and that they outright changed your description.
It will do you well to begin correcting all the people whom you rallied and misinformed on other platforms such as Facebook, as the current censorship and misinformation that is occurring is approaching levels of collusive abuse and an organized effort to ignore and break Wayfarer guidelines. If you need people who actually understood the rules from the beginning to help provide moderation assistance and to fix the mess you have created, feel free to let me know.
To help answer your first question, in case Giffard does not get to it, the creator of the artwork would be a third party, yes.
The first party is Niantic. The second party is you, the submitter. Anything outside of that is a third party.
If there is a description written about the nomination by someone else other than Niantic or the Submitter, it would not be allowed. @AisforAndis-PGO's post here details what is and isn't allowed and why pretty thuroughly.
Wait, so Niantic says we can't use real names anywhere? So we can't properly name, describe, or credit certain POIs that involve people? Or are they expecting us to ignore the rule in favor of common sense?
Ok, that's what I would have thought, but taking it at face value, it really is misleading. There's a hundred simple ways they could have made it much clearer. When you have nothing official but badly-written guidelines, there's nothing solid to fall back on when people provide an interpretation.
But I guess that's part of this entire wayfarer problem. 😂
While Niantic is often rather opaque about their intentions, it is difficult to believe they want us to refrain from identifying Washington, D.C., Abraham Lincoln’s Memorial there, or the monument’s creator.
In their efforts to (what?) obfuscate, chintz on thoughtful effort, rely more heavily on in-house lawyers than game designers, focus more on rules against things than explanations for them, they have created a somewhat irrational system.
We don’t really know what Niantic intends. It would really help if they were more transparent about this.
This is so true. Even the "official" response in this post about whether an artist's words were acceptable or not was cryptic and unhelpful. A clear "no, they're not because of X" would have been insanely easy and understandable, and directly answered the question. But they chose not to do any of that and parrot unclear guidelines which are open to interpretation, instead of providing the interpretation that was asked for.
It doesn't take much thought to speak plainly and directly, especially when people are clearly requesting exactly that, just to be absolutely sure. Yet there is so much beating around the ****, which is also echoed by the responses of many of the users themselves. Really makes you wonder.
I dont understand what is cryptic or unhelpful, the criteria was clear, the clarification was clear, the nomination in focus had its description changed by Niantic. I dk whats more clear than that... no it is not allowed because its from a third party source.
The OP clearly interpreted the artist's words as a first party source. Niantic did not directly address that, and instead spit out a canned statement about third party sources being ineligible. That much was already obvious. It was so obvious, the OP had already mentioned they knew that. The question was whether the artist's words was to be interpreted as first-party or third-party, since it's not immediately obvious in the context of Wayfarer. In other contexts, the artist's words are absolutely a first-party source, and someone could easily interpret them this way for Wayfarer.
So, as usual, Niantic either didn't bother to read the actual issue (par for the course), or they just regurgitated the same criteria the question was about, which doesn't help answer the question, and is also what Niantic tends to do. OP tried to clarify again because Niantic failed them the first time, and then you got other users leaping immediately to Niantic's defense and also being pretty unhelpful, when OP just wanted a simple, clear answer and didn't get one. Another user had to step in to provide the answer.
That's all my comment was about, that this is an example of Niantic being opaque and unhelpful, and users following in Niantic's footsteps. What may be easily "understandable" to some people is not understandable to other people. An artist's words, for example, are absolutely a first-party source and are often quoted that way, so it's a departure from what's normal to say that they're a third-party source, and that results in confusion. Niantic is using a different interpretation and didn't bother to explain.
It goes on to contradict itself when it says not to use names. So the problem still exists that Niantic's intentions are unclear. I could interpret this any which way I wanted and still be "accurate," publish my conclusions, and be different from someone else's interpretation, all without an authoritative source as an answer.
Sure, I'm going to actually use common sense. But common sense is different for everyone and not a substitute for good criteria and rules.
Answering your question, as per our norms, words/statements written on wall art is fine to be used. However, if the statement or passage is exactly present on a third-party source it is ineligible.
@Hosette-ING I assume that you will be returning to the Facebook group that you administrate and will correct the, many, many people who you misled on this, correct?
I think the continued misunderstanding and frustration lies in that folks assume the rule is to guard Niantic against copyright infringement. They own the database and are publishing "work" from contributors.
Technically speaking, using an authors own words to describe something is not breaking copyright, especially when you expressly indicate it is from the artist. You don't have to use their name to indicate the source. Like citing text from a book, if you say the "author writes and I quote..." anyone can go look at the book and find the authors name so you have satisfied to citation requirement. You have technically provided enough information to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues. Can you do more yes but you don't have too.
I think the real issue is that Niantic has gone a step beyond just adhering to copyright law in their guidance, likely in an effort to avoid the issue all together. They don't even want to stand next to that line, since they are the ones publishing the database, it falls on them to police it.
Personally I don't see any issue using an artists own words to describe their own artwork. You are quoting them, which should be 100% allowed. But since its also on another website, it technically is in violation of the guidance and I guess should be rejected. I personally don't agree with how far the rule goes but that's not the issue. Its the proper interpretation and it doesn't leave much room for debate.
Consider the same question in regards to a local coffee shop. Most of us have seen someone copying a text that reads like "We put our customers first and pour out our heart into every cup" Some businesses have very good write-ups of their coffee shop, but the purpose of wayfarer is not to copy what is on their site which runs a risk of sounding really commercial and promotional. Instead we act like guides, giving a description of the place from a neutral perspective that informs and encourages people to learn more.
I do the same, I research artwork, look up the names, the dates, check the artist's blogs for explanations of the piece. But then I paraphrase them, condense or expand them, and write it in a different way that comes across better as a guide.
Perhaps one could word it something along the lines of "this coffee house describes itself as..." If said independent coffee house has been around for many decades then obviously the locals will agree with said statement(s). I would never do an exact copy and paste from their website or social media page(s).
Yeah, I think if you've got a short, very pertinent quote that isn't particularly promotional and you're clear about where it's coming from and also have additional info in your own words, it's fine. If you end up filling the entire description with one quote, you probably need to revise what you've got and trim it down just to fit in your own external description. Using quotes is definitely a balancing act. They should enhance your description but not carry it.
Comments
@NianticGiffard So, to clarify, the creator of art is a third-party source?
Would this also extend to text that is written on the submission itself? If the artist had painted the words onto the wall rather than a reference to them would it be acceptable to quote them as part of the description?
You really should not need further clarification. You blatantly copy and pasted a wall of text from an external website, whether or not the text on that website was written by an artist. The constant topic changes, deflections, and whataboutisms do not pertain to the issue of your copy and pasted description from a website. Not to mention that a primary purpose of the website that you copied from is to promote an upcoming augmented reality app, not just to showcase artwork. This app could very likely be a direct competitor to the AR platforms Niantic is building and result in litigation that could effect Niantic's entire Wayspot network. You need to face the reality that you were wrong to the point that Niantic blatantly told you that you need to begin to adhere to the rules, and that they outright changed your description.
It will do you well to begin correcting all the people whom you rallied and misinformed on other platforms such as Facebook, as the current censorship and misinformation that is occurring is approaching levels of collusive abuse and an organized effort to ignore and break Wayfarer guidelines. If you need people who actually understood the rules from the beginning to help provide moderation assistance and to fix the mess you have created, feel free to let me know.
To help answer your first question, in case Giffard does not get to it, the creator of the artwork would be a third party, yes.
The first party is Niantic. The second party is you, the submitter. Anything outside of that is a third party.
If there is a description written about the nomination by someone else other than Niantic or the Submitter, it would not be allowed. @AisforAndis-PGO's post here details what is and isn't allowed and why pretty thuroughly.
Wait, so Niantic says we can't use real names anywhere? So we can't properly name, describe, or credit certain POIs that involve people? Or are they expecting us to ignore the rule in favor of common sense?
No. It's a deflection people are using.
In the context of the "no real names," it clearly means Trainers, Agents, etc.
Ok, that's what I would have thought, but taking it at face value, it really is misleading. There's a hundred simple ways they could have made it much clearer. When you have nothing official but badly-written guidelines, there's nothing solid to fall back on when people provide an interpretation.
But I guess that's part of this entire wayfarer problem. 😂
While Niantic is often rather opaque about their intentions, it is difficult to believe they want us to refrain from identifying Washington, D.C., Abraham Lincoln’s Memorial there, or the monument’s creator.
In their efforts to (what?) obfuscate, chintz on thoughtful effort, rely more heavily on in-house lawyers than game designers, focus more on rules against things than explanations for them, they have created a somewhat irrational system.
We don’t really know what Niantic intends. It would really help if they were more transparent about this.
This is so true. Even the "official" response in this post about whether an artist's words were acceptable or not was cryptic and unhelpful. A clear "no, they're not because of X" would have been insanely easy and understandable, and directly answered the question. But they chose not to do any of that and parrot unclear guidelines which are open to interpretation, instead of providing the interpretation that was asked for.
It doesn't take much thought to speak plainly and directly, especially when people are clearly requesting exactly that, just to be absolutely sure. Yet there is so much beating around the ****, which is also echoed by the responses of many of the users themselves. Really makes you wonder.
Since when is b. u. s. h censored??? What even. 😂
Niantic states official titles should be used when available and to give credit to the artists.
Give high ratings to:
I dont understand what is cryptic or unhelpful, the criteria was clear, the clarification was clear, the nomination in focus had its description changed by Niantic. I dk whats more clear than that... no it is not allowed because its from a third party source.
The OP clearly interpreted the artist's words as a first party source. Niantic did not directly address that, and instead spit out a canned statement about third party sources being ineligible. That much was already obvious. It was so obvious, the OP had already mentioned they knew that. The question was whether the artist's words was to be interpreted as first-party or third-party, since it's not immediately obvious in the context of Wayfarer. In other contexts, the artist's words are absolutely a first-party source, and someone could easily interpret them this way for Wayfarer.
So, as usual, Niantic either didn't bother to read the actual issue (par for the course), or they just regurgitated the same criteria the question was about, which doesn't help answer the question, and is also what Niantic tends to do. OP tried to clarify again because Niantic failed them the first time, and then you got other users leaping immediately to Niantic's defense and also being pretty unhelpful, when OP just wanted a simple, clear answer and didn't get one. Another user had to step in to provide the answer.
That's all my comment was about, that this is an example of Niantic being opaque and unhelpful, and users following in Niantic's footsteps. What may be easily "understandable" to some people is not understandable to other people. An artist's words, for example, are absolutely a first-party source and are often quoted that way, so it's a departure from what's normal to say that they're a third-party source, and that results in confusion. Niantic is using a different interpretation and didn't bother to explain.
It goes on to contradict itself when it says not to use names. So the problem still exists that Niantic's intentions are unclear. I could interpret this any which way I wanted and still be "accurate," publish my conclusions, and be different from someone else's interpretation, all without an authoritative source as an answer.
Sure, I'm going to actually use common sense. But common sense is different for everyone and not a substitute for good criteria and rules.
Credits to @AisforAndis-ING and @GearGlider-ING for explaining it so well.
Answering your question, as per our norms, words/statements written on wall art is fine to be used. However, if the statement or passage is exactly present on a third-party source it is ineligible.
Thanks for the compliment @NianticGiffard!
@Hosette-ING I assume that you will be returning to the Facebook group that you administrate and will correct the, many, many people who you misled on this, correct?
I haven't see it there yet. I can post it later today if no one else gets to it.Whoops, was thinking of the other facebook group for global reviewers.
So I just want to confirm my understanding:
- Submitter copies the entire text of a historical marker into the description box = ACCEPTABLE
-Submitter copies a paragraph from a newspaper article about the historical event = REJECT
I'm fine with that (as it is basically what I've been doing already), but it is still just a little unclear to me.
I think the continued misunderstanding and frustration lies in that folks assume the rule is to guard Niantic against copyright infringement. They own the database and are publishing "work" from contributors.
Technically speaking, using an authors own words to describe something is not breaking copyright, especially when you expressly indicate it is from the artist. You don't have to use their name to indicate the source. Like citing text from a book, if you say the "author writes and I quote..." anyone can go look at the book and find the authors name so you have satisfied to citation requirement. You have technically provided enough information to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues. Can you do more yes but you don't have too.
I think the real issue is that Niantic has gone a step beyond just adhering to copyright law in their guidance, likely in an effort to avoid the issue all together. They don't even want to stand next to that line, since they are the ones publishing the database, it falls on them to police it.
Personally I don't see any issue using an artists own words to describe their own artwork. You are quoting them, which should be 100% allowed. But since its also on another website, it technically is in violation of the guidance and I guess should be rejected. I personally don't agree with how far the rule goes but that's not the issue. Its the proper interpretation and it doesn't leave much room for debate.
Consider the same question in regards to a local coffee shop. Most of us have seen someone copying a text that reads like "We put our customers first and pour out our heart into every cup" Some businesses have very good write-ups of their coffee shop, but the purpose of wayfarer is not to copy what is on their site which runs a risk of sounding really commercial and promotional. Instead we act like guides, giving a description of the place from a neutral perspective that informs and encourages people to learn more.
I do the same, I research artwork, look up the names, the dates, check the artist's blogs for explanations of the piece. But then I paraphrase them, condense or expand them, and write it in a different way that comes across better as a guide.
Perhaps one could word it something along the lines of "this coffee house describes itself as..." If said independent coffee house has been around for many decades then obviously the locals will agree with said statement(s). I would never do an exact copy and paste from their website or social media page(s).
Yeah, I think if you've got a short, very pertinent quote that isn't particularly promotional and you're clear about where it's coming from and also have additional info in your own words, it's fine. If you end up filling the entire description with one quote, you probably need to revise what you've got and trim it down just to fit in your own external description. Using quotes is definitely a balancing act. They should enhance your description but not carry it.
@NianticGiffard kudos for actually following up on this to the end. Well done! (It has been way to many dropped balls in the past)