Jump to content

Returning to the old SCP-173 model! - Denied


NetworkParadox

Recommended Posts

What you want to see? -  SCP-173 model reverted to ones similar to SCP: Containment Breach or Unity.

Why should we add it? - We all miss Peanut. However, the model was removed for copyright concerns. However, after discussing with the SCP Wikis Licensing Team (The people in charge of the enforcement of untitled 2004) said they really couldn't care less if a model related to Untitled 2004 was put inside of our server, and it fits the Criteria that Mr. Kato gave them.

What are the advantages of having this? - The nostalgic model of SCP-173 can return, and we can live our days happy. SCP-173 would be recognizable to new players, and increase roleplay and a sense of 'fear'.

Who is it mainly for? - SCP-173

Links to any content -  https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1350884815

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the Wiki Licensing Team doesn't care that doesn't mean they are the ones holding the Copyright. 

The license that the Wiki uses is creative commons which means "Non-commercial use" only. This is the only way the image can be used with no exceptions, and from the best of my knowledge any use of "peanut" in the likeness of any image related to the Untitled 2004 created by Izumi Kato which SCP-173 is based off of.

No exceptions as any likeness related to Untitled 2004 is only allowed via the image on the wiki and only used under the creative commons to avoid copyright issues.

Edited by th3
Revising posts that are unneccesarily rude
  • Like 1

SCPRP Head of Staff

Lead Discord Administrator 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, th3 said:

Imo this suggestion made me lose a shit ton of brain cells cause of how fucked the reasoning you used is.

Just because the Wiki Licensing Team doesn't care that doesn't mean they are the ones holding the Copyright. 

I could go further but I think that alone is enough to deny this.

Edit: Actually I think I will go further.

 

The license that the Wiki uses is creative commons which means "Non-commercial use" only. This is the only way the image can be used with no exceptions, and from the best of my knowledge any use of "peanut" in the likeness of any image related to the Untitled 2004 created by Izumi Kato which SCP-173 is based off of.

No exceptions as any likeness related to Untitled 2004 is only allowed via the image on the wiki and only used under the creative commons to avoid copyright issues.

In my opinion that comment you made just had me lose faith in humanity.


The Wiki Licensing Team holds the copyright and its enforcement. They enforce it, they hold it under Mr Kato. So they have full authority and have authorized the use of a 173 model. Mr Kato gave them permission to do this.

Edited by NetworkParadox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NetworkParadox said:

The Wiki Licensing Team holds the copyright and its enforcement. They enforce it, they hold it under Mr Kato. So they have full authority and have authorized the use of a 173 model.

They have authorized nothing of the sort, and perhaps you are reading between the lines of something you have no business in.

Let's quote the excerpt from their website.

"The sculpture, its likeness, and the photograph have not been released under any Creative Commons license. Only the text of this article is released under Creative Commons. This sculpture and its likeness may not be used for commercial purposes under any circumstances. Izumi Kato has graciously chosen to allow the use of the image of "Untitled 2004" by the SCP Foundation and its fanbase for non-commercial purposes only."

The distinction of what is authorized and what isn't is very important here. Izumi Kato has allowed the use of "Untitled 2004" for non-commercial purposes only. This begs the question of what license the image has and what the statue which is the relevant piece has as well. As for what license the image and statue has, well the excerpt answers that spot on. 

The statue is used by the SCP Foundation and its fanbase for non-commercial use only in accordance with CC-BY-SA 3.0. Now the question is would the use of SCP-173 as linked by you violate that?

I would point out the issue with level's being available for purchase which guarantee the access of SCP-173.

Again they haven't authorized anything as you show nothing of the sort that even begins to support your case except your words. 

I try not to be rude but when you are defending this and leaving out important details I feel like I need to deliver accurate information even if I have to be an asshole.

 

SCPRP Head of Staff

Lead Discord Administrator 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Support
Not worth the risk
 

 

*drools* yay peanut peanut *drools and falls out of chair* we need penut,  we don't care of owner loses server, we need penut
 

  • Laughing 1

Was Nu7 2LT

Shot Once

Was a Nu7 MSGT

also was a CI Captain once

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, th3 said:

They have authorized nothing of the sort, and perhaps you are reading between the lines of something you have no business in.

Let's quote the excerpt from their website.

"The sculpture, its likeness, and the photograph have not been released under any Creative Commons license. Only the text of this article is released under Creative Commons. This sculpture and its likeness may not be used for commercial purposes under any circumstances. Izumi Kato has graciously chosen to allow the use of the image of "Untitled 2004" by the SCP Foundation and its fanbase for non-commercial purposes only."

The distinction of what is authorized and what isn't is very important here. Izumi Kato has allowed the use of "Untitled 2004" for non-commercial purposes only. This begs the question of what license the image has and what the statue which is the relevant piece has as well. As for what license the image and statue has, well the excerpt answers that spot on. 

The statue is used by the SCP Foundation and its fanbase for non-commercial use only in accordance with CC-BY-SA 3.0. Now the question is would the use of SCP-173 as linked by you violate that?

I would point out the issue with level's being available for purchase which guarantee the access of SCP-173.

Again they haven't authorized anything as you show nothing of the sort that even begins to support your case except your words. 

I try not to be rude but when you are defending this and leaving out important details I feel like I need to deliver accurate information even if I have to be an asshole.

 

Seems like all you are is rude...

 

And yes they did authorize it because I talked with them and their team captain of the Licensing Team who has permission from the Artist to authorize certain use of SCP-173. I'm fine with people not wanting the risk, but just arguing everything i say with false statements just isnt my thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, th3 said:

Imo this suggestion made me lose a shit ton of brain cells cause of how fucked the reasoning you used is.

Just because the Wiki Licensing Team doesn't care that doesn't mean they are the ones holding the Copyright. 

I could go further but I think that alone is enough to deny this.

Edit: Actually I think I will go further.

 

The license that the Wiki uses is creative commons which means "Non-commercial use" only. This is the only way the image can be used with no exceptions, and from the best of my knowledge any use of "peanut" in the likeness of any image related to the Untitled 2004 created by Izumi Kato which SCP-173 is based off of.

No exceptions as any likeness related to Untitled 2004 is only allowed via the image on the wiki and only used under the creative commons to avoid copyright issues.

We can’t risk the entire server because you think it will be fine 

Licensing and copyright holders are 2 different things 

Also please don’t call other people rude if they point out your mistakes. 

3 hours ago, th3 said:

They have authorized nothing of the sort, and perhaps you are reading between the lines of something you have no business in.

Let's quote the excerpt from their website.

"The sculpture, its likeness, and the photograph have not been released under any Creative Commons license. Only the text of this article is released under Creative Commons. This sculpture and its likeness may not be used for commercial purposes under any circumstances. Izumi Kato has graciously chosen to allow the use of the image of "Untitled 2004" by the SCP Foundation and its fanbase for non-commercial purposes only."

The distinction of what is authorized and what isn't is very important here. Izumi Kato has allowed the use of "Untitled 2004" for non-commercial purposes only. This begs the question of what license the image has and what the statue which is the relevant piece has as well. As for what license the image and statue has, well the excerpt answers that spot on. 

The statue is used by the SCP Foundation and its fanbase for non-commercial use only in accordance with CC-BY-SA 3.0. Now the question is would the use of SCP-173 as linked by you violate that?

I would point out the issue with level's being available for purchase which guarantee the access of SCP-173.

Again they haven't authorized anything as you show nothing of the sort that even begins to support your case except your words. 

I try not to be rude but when you are defending this and leaving out important details I feel like I need to deliver accurate information even if I have to be an asshole.

 

-Support 

Former
|| 
SCP-RP: Commander of Epsilon-11 || Chaos Insurgency Captain || Senior Admin ||  Forums Diplomat || Rho-36 Arcane Autonomous Scout ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if we use the base model without any facial features, like the green and red and black on the face? Or slap like a Troll Face, or something similar, on it instead, because then it would fall under Fair Use as a Parody.

Fair Use means "In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement."

Former Security Captain | Former RCF Commander | Former Admin of SCP:RP | King Penguin 
200.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Gunther said:

What if we use the base model without any facial features, like the green and red and black on the face? Or slap like a Troll Face, or something similar, on it instead, because then it would fall under Fair Use as a Parody.

Fair Use means "In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement."

I still don’t think Zeep would risk the server over a model 

Former
|| 
SCP-RP: Commander of Epsilon-11 || Chaos Insurgency Captain || Senior Admin ||  Forums Diplomat || Rho-36 Arcane Autonomous Scout ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, NetworkParadox said:

And yes they did authorize it because I talked with them and their team captain of the Licensing Team who has permission from the Artist to authorize certain use of SCP-173. I'm fine with people not wanting the risk, but just arguing everything i say with false statements just isnt my thing

the artist has stated multiple times that is work is not to be used for monetary gain of any kind, unless all donations on the server are stopped this is not possible. 

|Ex-Omi9 MAJ ||E-11 CPT|| Ex-SCPRP Senior Mod|

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2020 at 11:24 PM, th3 said:

Imo this suggestion made me lose a shit ton of brain cells cause of how fucked the reasoning you used is.

Just because the Wiki Licensing Team doesn't care that doesn't mean they are the ones holding the Copyright. 

I could go further but I think that alone is enough to deny this.

Edit: Actually I think I will go further.

 

The license that the Wiki uses is creative commons which means "Non-commercial use" only. This is the only way the image can be used with no exceptions, and from the best of my knowledge any use of "peanut" in the likeness of any image related to the Untitled 2004 created by Izumi Kato which SCP-173 is based off of.

No exceptions as any likeness related to Untitled 2004 is only allowed via the image on the wiki and only used under the creative commons to avoid copyright issues.

Aside from the meany tone, Th3 is right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...