Forum:Reforming Tardis:Video policy

Index → The Panopticon → Reforming Tardis:Video policy

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

Opening post

So I know the forums have become infamous recently for overly-long forum OPs. So I want to keep this as simple as possible.

Many moons ago, I made a forum post with the goal of reforming our image use policies. Today, I want to do the same, but for Tardis:Video policy. To me, there are numerous ways that our rules are unhelpful and out-dated. Many of our rules which are written down are no longer consistently followed, being abandoned in the field of policy through implementation. Below I want to quickly sum up my thoughts.

Part 1: Allowing non-admins to upload videos

For some time on Tardis Wiki, it has been an established rule that only admins can upload video content, despite the video upload feature being accessible to all users. In the past, some admins would even block users who did not follow this rule, as is the procedure on Tardis:Video policy.

However, many non-admins have videos they need uploading for their various projects. Thus, Tardis:Video recommendations was created, with Tardis talk:Video recommendations existing as a place for non-admins to jot down video links for admins to upload. Now, I have never known a time on this site where this feature was regularly used. One or twice a year, an admin will remember this exists and will get it caught up. But it has never functioned properly as a compromise.

Today, you'll find that this rule is outright ignored by most users, and for good justification. We simply don't have the workforce we used to because FANDOM is less popular as a site than it was ten years ago. While at one point, Tardis had several admins known to be active every day, today this is far from the case.

And since we have fewer admins, what purpose is there in assigning them needless busywork while they could be doing important tasks? If it gets to a point that we need more admins not to do normal admin stuff but to do very boring office work... Then we just need to change our rules, it's as simple as that.

So here is my suggestion. Registered editors who have accounts should be allowed to upload videos. The idea is that we build an expectation of everyone uploading content understanding our standards - what we allow, what we don't, etc. The right to upload videos can then by revoked once we encounter bad-faith actors or people who just don't understand the rules.

Part 2: Widening what videos are allowed

So this one has some tiers. According to the official rules on our website, these are the restrictions of what can be uploaded to TW:

1. Only YouTube videos can be uploaded
2. Only material from BBC affiliated YouTube channels can be uploaded

These two rules are, to put it lightly... Not actually the rules we follow. I've seen admins upload content from Vimeo, and of course we allow official BBV uploads and the like. So really, these two rules should be revised on paper. We should allow uploads from any site that FANDOM's upload tool supports, and we should allow uploads from any "official" source, regardless of it's the BBC or not.

Part 3: Fair use

So this part is going to be the most controversial. I think we should have a less intense policy when it comes to certain fair use content - specifically documentaries.

I have seen numerous videos created by folks like Christel Dee and Dalek 63*89 which absolutely would be awesome for our infoboxes, but officially we ban any use of these videos because they use promo images (and in some cases brief clips) without BBC permission. But I would argue said cases are fair use - and since this is an American Wiki officially, fair use matters here.

One specific documentary I very much want on the site is Tom J's Remembering Seven Keys to Doomsday. This is easily DVD-level quality, and is worth including. But I'd even go as far as to suggest occasional videos like Chris McFeely's TRANSFORMERS: THE BASICS on DEATH'S HEAD for non-DW topics.

Now, I've struggled for a while over what the standard would be here. I'm certain we would avoid reviews with more of a focus on historical analysis, and there's a potential threat of self-promotion by small creators. One might argue it should have something to do with quality, or people involved being connected to official productions, or even popularity... But I think it's too difficult of a topic to assign just one variable to.

So my advice would be that we A) judge each potential fair use video case-by-case with no specific standard, and B) only admins be allowed to upload videos like these. This would easily stop violations of T:NO SELF REF while allowing a better selection of content.

Part 4: Referencing (and citing) videos online

So one of our most asinine rules is that not only is it against policy to link to any videos online, it is against policy to describe to another user how to find a video.

For instance, I am currently researching the famous Doctor Who pinball game. There are many videos online showing how to play this game, and even vintage instructional videos which came with the machines. If I tell someone "Oh [username] uploaded [video title]," that is against policy and can result in me being blocked.

That, by itself, is a stupid rule we should get rid of. However, a much bigger issue is that in the current era, there are many video hosting websites which we actually can't upload to the wiki. Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok all, as far as I know, have video content which can not be imbedded easily through the FANDOM system.

So the obvious flaw here is that through these archaic rules, there is no way to properly reference the existence of non-YouTube content on the Wiki. For instance, a while ago I saw a video on Twitter of someone working on the 2023 specials using the phrase RTD2, showing that it's official terminology that needs a page... But I can't cite this video because it can't be uploaded and can't be linked to due to site policy. That's stupid.

Generally, there should be an understanding that Tardis Wiki is not going to be sued for acknowledging content exists elsewhere online. Even if the BBC takes something down, they would never in a million years sue a fan wiki for saying "So and so uploaded this thing to YouTube if you want to see it." This is especially important for lost media (which should never be uploaded here but should be something we can discuss on talk pages) but generally we should have a level-headed mindset about how the world actually works.

Conclusions

So I hope this one was easy on your eyes. To sum everything up - we should allow Vimeo uploads, uploads of official but non-BBC videos, links to sites which can't be imbedded but are important, the ability to lead other users to content which exists online ("Search these key words and look for a video by this creator"), the ability for non-admins to upload content if they prove to understand the rules, and selective documentaries by non-official entities if judged and uploaded by the admin team. OS25🤙☎️ 21:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Great OP. I fully support this proposal. However, I would amend the bit about which videos we can upload to say that any non-official videos can be uploaded too, just as long as they are within topic and it makes sense for us to have it. Danniesen ☎ 21:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

To add an example to the above... the Behind the Scenes for The Curse of Fatal Death (TV story) exists on YouTube, but it’s not been uploaded by any official account, but rather an account called "Bob Thackray". We should be allowed to have that, as it's not really to be found anywhere "official" such as BBC or Red Nose Day or the like. Danniesen ☎ 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Will discuss in more depth later. Preliminary thoughts: we might also want to flesh out some rules for videos specifically for the discussions section. Because, well, there's basically no real ruleset over there except "whatever an admin thinks is appropriate". A compromise, if people thinks this goes too far, is to grant another role to some prominent editors and let them also add videos as well as admins, (content-mod is probably the most obvious, but that's kinda a hassle, it grants a ton of access. Rollback is probably less egregious if we wanted to go down this route. But we still don't let people have rollback for a reason.) I'm actually fairly skeptical of the fair use stuff here in the sense that I'm skeptical that this is fair use. But I also don't really care, for the same reason I'm not super concerned about R2. (IP holders are just landlords, don't @ me.) But that might be motivating for others. Najawin ☎ 21:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

In general, I agree. However, I'd rather not allow non-official uploads, including fair use documentaries. I would very much like to allow citing and linking to these types of videos, though. I've been watching a lot of Josh Snares documentaries recently and some of them are easily the same quality as official documentaries and would be great sources to be able to cite. The same can be said for Dalek 63•89. We allow citing unofficial reference books and websites. I don't see why unoffocial documentaries should be any different. It's not just unofficial stuff I'd like to be able to link and cite, though. Official channels can upload behind the scenes content and I feel we should be able to cite these directly. I have some more thoughts on a topic not brought up in the OP but it's a bit more in depth than I have time to write up right now so expect to see another message tomorrow. Bongo50 ☎ 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'd also like to specifficaly affirm that, speaking as an admin, I'd love to relax the rules on non-admins uploading videos. We don't have any equivelant for images and it would make my work as admin a little easier. Tardis:Video recommendations can becomes very messy and hard to work through if it's not kept on top off. Bongo50 ☎ 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This thread. Oh boy do I have some thoughts about the video policies...

Firstly, I want to say that, for the most part, I agree with every proposed change.

• Part 1: Non-admins should be able to upload videos, as just recently, File:SUTEKH THE HERETIC..., which I uploaded, was deleted from the site, not because of the video actually failing the rules of the site, but because I, a non-admin, uploaded it. Within ten minutes it was reuploaded by another admin. This, frankly, is a rule that needs to go!
• Part 2: We should allow any content from an "official" source and from other sites other than YouTube (I'll get into this later).

However, here is where I have differing opinions.

• Part 3: While I mostly agree with with Part 3, in that videos under fair use should be allowed, I don't think only admins should be allowed to upload them. For the same reason that admins just don't have the time, it makes sense — just like with images! — to allow anyone to upload them and if any fail the rules, they can be — again, just like images — be nominated for deletion. This would also mean Category:Proposed video deletions will have to be created. I belive working out criteria is very much worth pursuing.
• Part 4: I agree, again, mostly with everything said in this part... except for lost/really-obscure media.

It should be noted, that, we wouldn't be uploading lost media, just embedding it onto the Wiki (although even this may not be necessary, I'll explain later). Found lost media is really difficult to find online, as most people who upload it use different names (usually fanmade) to those that Wiki uses; it would make a lot of sense to be able to embed the different Tardisodes on their respective pages, for example. The lost media rabbit hole goes deep (not even having a page yet) so exposure of these videos is important!

I feel the rule of thumb, with these, is that if there is no release containing this video content that the respective copyright holder profits off (e.g. the original cut of A Fix with Sontarans which will frankly never see the light of day again) it should be uploaded. But if these are ever given a new official release, then they should be removed off the site. But still, even if we can just mention unofficial uploads of these pieces of (now not) lost media on this Wiki, that is still an improvement over current policy.

Furthermore, I assume that this thread is partially exempt from Tardis:Video policy? Otherwise I expect both me and @OttselSpy25 will be receiving blocks for daring to mention videos exist outside of official releases...!

Now for what I alluded to earlier: a while back, I was informed by @Spongebob456 on my Message Wall on the Home Alone Wiki that there are two methods of adding videos to the Wiki:

1. [[Special:NewFiles]]: this method, as designed by Fandom, allows videos from Dailymotion, Vime, Youku, and YouTube. So, all these sites should be a-okay.
2. EmbedVideo: now for the juicy one. Remember how I said, regarding lost media, we wouldn't even need to traditionally embed the video onto the site? Well, here we go — with this method... we don't need to. With {{#ev:service|id|dimensions|alignment|description}}, we can display videos from, well, everything listed here. Which is a lot. If we can recognise we aren't going to be sued over a YouTube upload, we can allow lost media. It's not illegal to link to a video! And even if the copyright holder does want to remove it, they'll just copyright strike the video, as is everything with YouTube.
   EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝
   21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I support all the proposals made in the OP. Pluto2☎ 22:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Relevant threads are Forum:Origins of our video policy, Forum:Origins of video policy, and Forum:Users should be allowed any youtube video on their user page (kinda),

Onto specifics. Part 1 is good, though I elaborated how we might go about implementing a compromise. Part 2 is good. Part 3 depends on the rest of you? IANAL, but what I do know about copyright is that commentary and criticism is actually a pretty strict standard to meet. Now, again, all IP holders are rent seekers, so idgaf. But it's something we might really want to be careful about. Part 4 is fandom policy, can't be done. (Well, technically, it's fandom policy if it's not the copyright owner. But yeah, not easy to do.)

Yeah, so, that's the real issue here. I'm not against embedding lost media, or, uh, content from the seven seas. But if we do so knowingly it's against Fandom ToU and we'll potentially get a global block. Can our policies really encourage that? Even tacitly? Najawin ☎ 03:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with proposals 1, 2, and maybe 3? Like Najawin, I don't really care if it's licensed or not (I'm ideologically an anarchic communist), but think it could be iffy legally, so perhaps we should stay away from uploading/embedding unlicensed stuff. Aquanafrahudy 📢 07:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Part 3… I mean, I'm very much not a lawyer, but surely uploading and embedding are very different matters? With YouTube videos whose fair-use credentials are questionable, we're not actually proposing to upload them to the Wiki directly and have them hosted to Fandom servers. We're just linking to them — embedding a window into externally-hosted content — yes? Are we really, thereby, exposing ourselves/Fandom to any liability? Aren't the YouTubers' choices their own problem/YouTube's? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say so. I mean, wouldn’t it basically be like talking about it, without showing it? Last I checked, it wasn’t against the law to talk about things. So I would say embedding a link would be completely fair. Danniesen ☎ 10:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Or EmbedVideo, as Epsilon suggested. Aquanafrahudy 📢 11:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with Scrooge. Which begs the question - how does everyone feel about the "No linking to YouTube videos" policy? It's the only thing I didn't really get into in my OP. I'm kind of ambivalent on the topic myself, but surely linking to something is even less legally significant than embedding it? OS25🤙☎️ 18:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Nah, doesn't solve the issue for part 3 Scrooge. Per the ToU:

You further agree [...] Not to upload, post, email, transmit, link to or otherwise make available any content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party

If the stuff we're linking to isn't fair use (and I suspect that much of it is not), we're violating this. It's ToU, not legal problems for us per se. Do we care in writing our rules? I dunno. Do we? Najawin ☎ 19:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

For the record, literally the only reason I know this is because I wrote up Forum:10 Years on, Amnesty Once More, read the ToU for the sockpuppet portion, and looked through the block log and some people had local blocks for violating this policy. From, I think, Amorkuz. It's weirdly broad. Najawin ☎ 19:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

To hell with the old system, honestly. It’s ancient and decaying. Danniesen ☎ 19:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

To be honest I am uncertain how the ToU even functions given that there exist many Fandom Wikis, like the Media Archive Wiki, completely relies on unlicensed uploads of media onto YouTube. I can't help but feel enforcing that rule would be rather of an uphill battle for Fandom to pursue else they'll need to have Fandom staff comb every single Wiki (and probably misunderstand ones like ours where the BBC doesn't own all the copyrights to everything in Who! "Andy Frankham-Allen is writing books about a guy from the 1970s era of Doctor Who and has uploaded a trailer for his book on YouTube? That's gotta be unlicensed.")

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

19:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Spongebob or Czech might be the best people to ask? People used to direct questions on T:VID to Czech, so if he has the time to respond... Najawin ☎ 20:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The way I tend to interpret that part of the ToU (and I'm not, of course, a Fandom employee or a lawyer) is that it's there just to protect Fandom's back just in case a license holder does ask them "hey, why are you allowing this copyrighted content to be hosted on your platform?". They can then point to that bit of the ToU and say "we don't allow it, thanks for bringing it to our attention". I don't think Fandom goes around actively enforcing the rule (although, again, this is nothing like an official statement or admin ruling, just my opinion based on what I've observed). In any case, we violate this rule all the time. The clause extends to image uploads and, despite what we may claim, many of these are not fair use and definitely infringe copyright. We pretty much just hope that nobody cares. Bongo50 ☎ 21:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm of the same opinion. It seems to me that this FANDOM policy should ban most of our activities as a Wiki - linking to videos seems like a minor thing by contrast. OS25🤙☎️ 21:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure. The question, it seems to me, is whether our policy can actively encourage people to violate ToU, or be broad enough, without actively encouraging them, that we know that people will inevitably do so. Najawin ☎ 21:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Surely you can at least agree that under this reading, linking to official material (which could otherwise be uploaded) should be allowed? I think we should be able to link interviews and the such. OS25🤙☎️ 21:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

As an example of where being able to link to YouTube videos would be helpful, I'm currently researching The Faceless Ones heavily and would very much like to be able to cite a few documentaries I found on YouTube in one of my upcoming drafts, but there is currently no way for me to be able to. I see this as comparable to citing an unofficial reference book or fanzine which we do allow. Bongo50 ☎ 21:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Linking to official material is clearly acceptable, yes (imo). Linking to unofficial material runs into precisely the issue discussed. And it's a real headache, but it's Fandom ToU. We could, potentially, develop an in-house citation style for youtube reference works and ask spongebob. Or specifically ask spongebob just generically about this issue. But, you know, as the ToU is written it's technically a violation if this stuff isn't actually fair use. Najawin ☎ 21:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I think Bongo is absolutely on the mark here. If we have a page on something like Downtime – The Lost Years of Doctor Who, allowing us to freely cite its contents, then why can't we have a way to cite YouTube documentaries? There must be a solution somehow. OS25🤙☎️ 04:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think we are overthinking way too much about what bad things could come from this that that we are stalling what could make the wiki so much better. Danniesen ☎ 06:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Those two things are often qualitatively distinct, in that many self described YouTube documentaries claim to be fair use but are not. (Again, the bar for commentary and criticism is stricter than what many people think it is.) Since something like Downtime isn't showing clips of copyrighted material it's going to be a lot easier for it to be kosher.

Are we overthinking this? I mean. Maybe? It's not like Fandom pays us much attention unless they want something from us. But it is ToU, and the question of whether we can tacitly encourage users to violate ToU is actually pretty important. If there ever is an issue, I could imagine this policy change being pointed to as a reason to take a heavier hand.

Again, if you want, I can ask Spongebob or Czech. We can work up some wording that tries to push back the responsibility of everything involved being fair use on the uploader of the documentary/person claiming fair use (and we might specifically say that you still can't link to material that's copyrighted outside of claims of fair use, idk, we can decide on that), and that if the copyright holder wishes the link removed they need only contact an admin, and we can try asking if that's okay. Najawin ☎ 07:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked Spongebob (off-wiki via Discord, although I'm sure he'd be happy to verify on-wiki) about linking to fan documentaries and the like. This was the response I received:

Hey! Linking to the videos wouldn't be an issue our end as we're not hosting them - YouTube are. If a video is taken down from YouTube, then the YouTube embed or link won't display the video. Clearly we'd prefer you didn't link to YouTube videos containing full episodes that are illegally uploaded, but clips, fan documentaries etc will be fine. I would bear in mind that if we're asked to take them down by the Copyright holder, we would have to honor that though.Spongebob456

This seems pretty clear-cut to me. Bongo50 ☎ 19:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

/shrug/ Alright then. I'd probably still suggest writing up our policy in a way that pushes responsibility off of us. :P Najawin ☎ 19:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! This also opens the door to clips of episodes that fans have uploaded onto video sites that the BBC haven't, as the BBC rarely upload more than a handful of clips from a given episode on YT, especially of less... plot-relevant scenes (what immediately comes to mind is Muriel Frost's appearance in the news, picked up on the TARDIS scanner, when Nine, Rose, and Mickey are in the TARDIS while Jackie calls the police to report the Doctor, which no uploads exist of online).

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

19:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of if we should allow video uploads of cultural references. I think it we list, say, references in the SiIvaGunner channel on one of the "Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe" pages (as that's what they are), it would be good to be able to embed at least one of the more notable DW-themed uploads from the channel (also clips from other series where the reference is purely audio-based). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 16:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s time we either revive discussion on this Forum debate or find a conclusion to it. Danniesen ☎ 18:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Still think we should allow video uploads from accounts that are not official as long as the videos make sense to have. Danniesen ☎ 13:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think our policy should be that we *prefer* offical uploads, and we absolutely discourage low-quality uploads that have only survived in the YouTube ecosystem for being of so poor quality (hazy edges, low frame-rate, etc).

But given that FANDOM's policy is that we can imbed whatever we want, as imbedding is not uploading, I do think we should branch outside of "official" sources, especially for obscure things like, say, a Doctor Who Pinball instructional video. OS25🤙☎️ 06:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way that we can stop now, pass the resolution on non-admins uploading videos, and then continue this debate? This old rule is just seriously maddening and holding us back. OS25🤙☎️ 20:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. With the broadcast of Wild Blue Yonder ^[+]Loading...["Wild Blue Yonder (TV story)"], the Official Doctor Who YouTube channel has uploaded a bunch of new videos... which I can't upload. >:(

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

20:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If action could be taken on this forum thread, it would be appreciated as its scope effects the content of Forum:Video subpages, as it would allow a greater selection of videos to be added to the proposed new subpage type.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

18:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Danniesen ☎ 18:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

So… if we could get this Forum debate up and running again, or if we could have it concluded, it would be great. Danniesen ☎ 23:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s time to get this thread going again. It’s been neglected way too long. Danniesen ☎ 10:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Post-fork

So considering that a good amount of the above debate was dedicated to clarifying what FANDOM's policies on this issue are, it's perhaps now important to establish that we are no longer a FANDOM site. I'm sure our new host will have their own rules, but I can only imagine they will agree with us that linking to something is not the same thing as uploading it to our site. It would be without legal precedent for Tardis.Wiki to be sued by the BBC for embedding a clip we didn't upload, nor for linking to a clip in a discussion.

Because of that - I now propose that we do away with the rule banning linking to online video websites. So in total, these are the rule suggestions I propose:

• Anyone can "upload" videos to the new Wiki, as long as they do not break content rules (no nudity, etc).
• Anyone can link to or at least reference the existence of videos on other sites, as long as the sites are PG and legal.

This leaves a final point of contention. Should we only include official uploads? I think, given the circumstances, there is nothing wrong with occasionally embedding non-official uploads. If the videos are taken down, we can remove them from our pages. But I think that any resource, from the BBC or otherwise, that helps our casual readers understand these topics is wholly good.

I do think we should have some standards, however. We should likely discourage channels that add watermarks or blur the footage to confuse copyright bots. Not Funny Family Guy Moments accounts. But at the very least, if I want to upload the official DW Pinball instructional video, stuff like that should be allowed. OttselSpy25 ☎ 02:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The PG aspect seems based on a misapprehension! We're in fact freer to discuss NSFW things than we were at Fandom, so long as it's properly tagged. (I understand more technologically-inclined people than I are working on a system to blur NSFW images by default which people could then click to un-blur at their discretion. I'm not sure it could extend to thumbnails, so I suppose videos with NSFW thumbnails might be prohibited…?… I can't imagine that would come up often, though, and you could certainly still link to them with the proper warnings.) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 03:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that may be true, but I think on principle we should discourage people uploading the opening scene to Zygon: When Being You Just Isn't Enough. OttselSpy25 ☎ 16:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we? Well, that may be, but in any event NSFW does also cover things like gore/violence, of which we also have a fair bit here and there. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I understand why it might seem smart to decline closing this forum until we'd have a post-fork consensus. But I think the average editor's likelihood of contributing to a debate this old is much lower than if we "forked" the thread itself. I think the best call right now would be for an admin to make final judgements on most, if not all, of the original opening talking points, with a post-fork sequel thread then being started. OttselSpy25 ☎ 21:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)