Description Text copied from Internet - do you reject it?
According to the criteria it is a rejection reason if the text in the description is copied from an other source. Do you automatically reject such nominations, if besides the nomination is fine? Or do you apply some form of judgment in that case? For example, I just came across a description of a hiking Track (the nomination was a way sign, which personally I find quite tedious but still its eligible) I could find the description text 1:1 in multiple sources on the Internet, i.e. the website of the country, the village and also some family site.
Does it "harm" wayfarers somehow in the game when too many of their nominations get rejected (for example do they receive a ban)?
My personal grade just bounced back to "super" :-) and I want to keep it like that, so sorry for buggering you with all these questions....
Ineligible text or description
Title and/or description seems copied and pasted from other sources,
Third party text should indeed be rejected with the appropriate rejection reason.
"should be rejected" does that mean that you indeed reject them, doesn't it?
I found that Niantic Article on "doing Ratings the right way" and that one said you should give a low rating to the descripton if the text is copied.
Is there any other source that says these nominations have to be rejected? How do other Wayfarers handle that in practice?
Give low ratings to:
I do not copy all supporting text into Google and search to see if it’s third party. If I encounter text that seems like not the voice of a Wayfarer, I will search for it and see what comes up. I will reject if it is third party text. I’m not sure why we’re discussing this, the criteria is very clear.
yes you reject.
I find these nominations have me mentally screaming - why did you do that 😂
something perfectly good ends up rejected when a small amount of effort - and the description does not need to be long- it would be an accept.
Same with dreadful photos taken at an angle that makes you seasick.
If it is copied and pasted from the internet, I reject every time, and sometimes report through the Wayfarer Help Chat.
Just to add to the discussion a bit more, Niantic’s stance in their Terms of Service on third-party content is pretty unambiguous.
You are solely responsible for all your User Content. You represent and warrant that you own all your User Content or you have all rights that are necessary to grant us the license rights in your User Content under these Terms. You also represent and warrant that neither your User Content, nor your use and provision of your User Content to be made available through the Services, nor any use of your User Content by Niantic on or through the Services will infringe, misappropriate or violate a third party’s intellectual property rights, or rights of publicity or privacy, or result in the violation of any applicable law or regulation.
I have seen previously some people argue that the guideline says to ‘give low ratings to…’ rather than ‘reject’. However, the TOS above seems to me that rejecting is most appropriate. Additionally, that list of ‘give low ratings to…’ scenarios includes items with explicit 1 star rejection reasons like emojis.
Its exactly that what made me wonder - it mentally hurts to reject a good nomination for such a "minor" reason - but having been reassured by tje community I'm doing the right thing, these kind of rejections will become a lot easier for me!
Thank und very much!
Using direct text from sources you do not personally own is copyright infringement, even from sources such as Wikipedia (who uses the Creative Commons licencing). The only real exception is when you use a Proper Noun (such as the name of the artist who painted a mural or the name of a church, for example).
Please remember that the information entered into a nomination goes into a database (Kit) that Niantic are planning on on-selling. That is, they plan to make a profit from it. As such, they have to be extra vigilant to make sure they do not include direct text that is copyright held by others.
They're allowed to use what you, personally, hold copyright claim over; because you have to agree with that as part of being able to nominate prospective wayspots. That is, you grant Niantic permission to use what is otherwise copyright by you.
1. add an interesting sculpture
2. search for information about it
3. choose interesting fragments about it and combine them into a description
4. someone rejects it for a "stolen" description
1. add an interesting sculpture
2. write "interesting sculpture" in the description
3. someone rejects it for poor description
Something to throw into the mix: Including a quote as part of the description shouldn't be grounds for rejection. For example, something like this completely-made up text:
This colorful mural by local artist Janicalicioloo Long-Unpronouncable is located on the south wall of the historic Bacon Factory Building. Long-Unpronouncable describes the work as "an exuberant celebration of chaos, politics, and knee socks." It won the AnyTownVille award for Best Use of Chartreuse in Street Art in 2021, and was featured on the cover of Visit Our Awesome State magazine that year.
The quote "an exuberant celebration of chaos, politics, and knee socks" shouldn't be grounds for rejection.
@Hosette-ING No, you're right... because you cited the source and likely used much less than ten percent of the original work from which that line was copied. As such, not copyright infringement. If, however, the relevant part of the example description read, "It is an exuberant celebration of chaos, politics, and knee socks", no citation, then it is copyright infringement.
If the whole thing is lifted from elsewhere yes.
If I use the text that’s on the thing, I will put something myself firstly and then “it reads” and then whatever is on the plaque/sign and such.
@PkmnTrainerJ-ING Yes, if you don't know the author then 'It reads' followed by what's written in quotes is usually 'good enough' to get past the copyright hurdle; since 'it reads' would also be identifying the source (which would be the object/sign displayed in the image).
Honesty, copyright is not 'society's' attempt to stifle creativity. It's there to protect the right of the creator of the original to, not least of which is, make money from their creation if that's their intent. In almost all cases all the creator wants is recognition for their work if used by another. It's only when the user makes money from it that matters can often go the route of the courts. And Niantic are planning on making money from their creation of Lightship.
Yeah, I’m trying to say, it’s not my own words but this is how the item has been identified, so I am adding to help add to the description.
I used to reject them. But given the lack of action, an attempt to report a copypasta to the Wayfarer help chat about a plagiarised description (which they said there was nothing wrong with the nomination in question), and the fact that rejecting it for abuse and/or title and description doesn't matter to the submitter and they just resubmit it with the identical, Wikipedia description anyway, I just didn't bother.
Basically, Niantic doesn't want to get sued.
The makers of a historical marker aren't going to sue Niantic for repeating the marker's text. Their goal is to share that information freely - as wide as possible.
A restaurant isn't going to sue because their website is quoted in a game - they WANT their website quoted anyplace that could draw customers to them.
The most common source that people illegally copy is Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets no gain from Niantic using their text - and that data is Wikipedia's whole business purpose, so it's stealing.
(Niantic's big hard-stop rejections reasons are anything that could get them sued: copyright infringement, someone's front yard, schools, doxxing, unsafeness, pools where no one is in charge of safety.)
@MargariteDVille-ING : Yup! Right on the money... pun intended. 😁
Just to add to the discussion… a few things:
the description is listed as optional so it seems kind of absurd to reject something that is optional unless the way the system works is that it sees the optimal description for a five star non ad being flagged and just deletes the text. Otherwise, we end up with pointless nominations.
How do people rate a description that is essentially taken from the object itself? A plaque that describes a deceased composer who went to the local high school and the submitter copied the text from the plaque itself (ie, the photo is of the plaque). I imagine if someone does a Google search they will find that text somewhere with a photo of the plaque as well (wiki maybe). Should THAT be flagged as 3rd party? If so, should the submitter take time to paraphrase something that is literally text in the photo being submitted?
I personally dislike all of stops that made it into the game with no description whatsoever.
I believe it’s only listed as optional so that reviewers don’t reject older Scanner [Redacted] nominations that are still in the system.
At that time, nominations didn’t need a description, which is why you see many in game without one.
The older nominations will also not have supporting photos if you see them
For your example, I do this all the time with plaques and add information beforehand and then add “The plaque reads: <text on plaque>” or something like that. You have 512 characters for description. Usually good enough.