Proposed change to the terms of service: change how abuse reports are submitted

Post Header

Published:

2016-05-16 18:52:27 UTC

Tags:

Banner by Diane with the outlines of a man and woman speaking with word bubbles, one of which has the OTW logo and the other which says 'OTW Announcement'

Our hard-working, all-volunteer Abuse team has asked for a change in how abuse reports are submitted. Based on the past seven years’ experience, it has determined that anonymous complaints are unhelpful and highly burdensome. First, the majority of anonymous reports are duplicates. Second, a large number of anonymous reports have, in the past, been rejected, but we have no way to contact the reporters to explain what is and is not a violation of the Terms of Service. Finally, many anonymous reports do not include the necessary information, which means Abuse closes them without investigating since there is nothing else it can do—the team can’t follow up to get more information. We realize some people may not feel comfortable reporting things under their own name. However, reports may still be made using a throwaway or dedicated email account, as long as there is a way to contact the person making the complaint.

Current text:

1. Submitting a complaint

Complaints may be submitted to our abuse team. Except in the case of copyright complaints, a complainant may submit a complaint via the web form, which does not require identifying information. Depending on the nature of the complaint, however, anonymity may hinder our ability to verify the complaint or affect the credibility of the complaint. In order for the abuse team to follow up on any allegation, the exact location (URL) and nature of the alleged violation must be supplied in the original complaint. Repeated unverified abuse complaints from the same source may be subject to summary rejection.

2. Treatment and investigation of complaints

Only people who need to know about a complaint will be informed about it. The details of any individual complaint are confidential and must be used only in resolving that complaint. The subject of a complaint may also be among those who need to know about it. Only information provided in the complaint will be passed on. The complainant has complete control over what information is submitted to Abuse, and can submit the complaint anonymously. (Legal names and other information sufficient to identify a person in the physical world will never be disclosed as part of a standard abuse complaint. For further clarification, please refer to our privacy policy.)

Proposed text:

1. Submitting a complaint

2. Treatment and investigation of complaints

Only people who need to know about a complaint will be informed about it. The details of any individual complaint are confidential and must be used only in resolving that complaint. The subject of a complaint may also be among those who need to know about it. Only information provided in the complaint will be passed on. The complainant has complete control over what information is submitted to Abuse, and can submit the complaint anonymously. (Legal names and other information sufficient to identify a person in the physical world will never be disclosed as part of a standard abuse non-copyright complaint. For further clarification, please refer to our privacy policy.) Except in the case of copyright complaints, the name and contact information provided by the complainant will not be disclosed to the user.

Actions

Comments

Sorry, this news post doesn't allow comments.

Yrindor Mon 16 May 2016 10:59PM UTC

If I understand this post correctly, the proposed change is to stop allowing completely anonymous Abuse reports. I support this change; however, the change is not clear to me from the proposed updated text. Specifically, in "Submitting a complaint," the ToS still reads "a complainant may submit a complaint via the web form, which does not require identifying information. Depending on the nature of the complaint, however, anonymity may hinder our ability to verify the complaint," which to me seems to contradict the outlined change. I wonder if there is a way to make the proposed change clearer in the ToS (provided I've understood it correctly)?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Eoraptor Tue 17 May 2016 05:28AM UTC
  
  This is my thought as well. I am a big believer in one being able to confront ones accuser, and also familiar with the nature of so called "anonymous complaints," which are generally more noise than substance and allow someone to artificially echo their own words. (as referenced in the post itself as duplications) but the proposed wording really doesn't seem to clarify the situation in the way the post suggests. It maintains essentially the status quo by my reading, still allowing the same use of anonymous automated forms submission.
  Perhaps something more like:
  1. Submitting a complaint
  Complaints may be submitted to our abuse team. Except in the case of copyright complaints, a complainant may submit a complaint via the web form, which does not require identifying information. ~~Depending on the nature of the complaint,~~ However, anonymity ~~may[~~ is likely to hinder our ability to verify the ~~complaint or affect the credibility~~ nature or credibility of the complaint and to follow up on it where necessary. In order for the abuse team to follow up on any allegation, the exact location (URL) and nature of the alleged violation must be supplied in the original complaint.
  a. Repeated unverified Abuse Complaints from the same source may be subject to summary rejection. Abuse Complaints with insufficient or incomplete information may be subject to summary rejection. See Section One Above.
  2. Treatment and investigation of complaints
  Only people who need to know about a complaint will be informed about it. The details of any individual complaint are confidential and must be used only in resolving that complaint. The subject of a complaint may also be among those who need to know about it. Only information provided in the complaint will be passed on. The complainant has complete control over what information is submitted to Abuse, and can submit the complaint anonymously. (Legal names and other information sufficient to identify a person in the physical world will never be disclosed as part of a standard abuse complaint.Except in the case of copyright disputes, the identity of the complainant will not be disclosed to the cited User. For further clarification, please refer to our privacy policy.
  There really should be a clear explanation of who "people who need to know about a complaint" actually are, IE the member of the abuse team doing the investigation, any elevated persons such as site admins, any other members of the abuse team not doing the investigation?
  
  Last Edited Tue 17 May 2016 05:39AM UTC
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:13AM UTC
    
    Hi--it looks like a strikethrough that was supposed to be in the proposal was omitted; I apologize for mistakenly formatting it. Indeed, the proposal will remove the text that you point to. The proposed revision for that section reads: "Complaints may be submitted to our abuse team. In order for the abuse team to follow up on any allegation, the exact location (URL) and nature of the alleged violation must be supplied in the original complaint. Repeated unverified abuse complaints from the same source may be subject to summary rejection."
    In terms of your other point, it may not be possible to determine in advance who needs to know about a complaint. In many cases, site admins don't have any need to know; in some cases, where the complaint is submitted in a language that no abuse team member speaks, it has to be translated; and so on. The overarching rule is, though, that anyone who is brought in has to agree to abide by the abuse confidentiality rules.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. wowbright Tue 31 May 2016 06:42PM UTC
      
      Could this correction be added to the post itself?
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
3. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:10AM UTC
  
  Hi--it looks like a strikethrough that was supposed to be in the proposal was omitted; I apologize for mistakenly formatting it. Indeed, the proposal will remove the text that you point to. The proposed revision for that section reads: "Complaints may be submitted to our abuse team. In order for the abuse team to follow up on any allegation, the exact location (URL) and nature of the alleged violation must be supplied in the original complaint. Repeated unverified abuse complaints from the same source may be subject to summary rejection."
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Teeth Tue 17 May 2016 10:15AM UTC

This is a very good change, but I do agree with Yrindor, there is nothing in the proposed wording that indicates it.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:13AM UTC
  
  Hi--it looks like a strikethrough that was supposed to be in the proposal was omitted; I apologize for mistakenly formatting it. Indeed, the proposal will remove the text that you point to. The proposed revision for that section reads: "Complaints may be submitted to our abuse team. In order for the abuse team to follow up on any allegation, the exact location (URL) and nature of the alleged violation must be supplied in the original complaint. Repeated unverified abuse complaints from the same source may be subject to summary rejection."
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Zooey_Glass Tue 17 May 2016 11:49AM UTC

Like the other two commenters above, I think the substance of this change as summarised in the post sounds fine but the wording in the TOS isn't at all clear to me.
Point 1 should clearly state that contact information must be provided when submitting a complaint - as I understand from the post this is at the heart of the change but it doesn't seem to be conveyed at all in the new wording. Perhaps specify that this is at the discretion of the user and need not be the contact info associated with an AO3 account?
Point 2: I'd like some of the deleted text to be reinstated to make it clear that the SUBSTANCE of the complaint may be passed on, but not the details of the COMPLAINANT.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:15AM UTC
  
  Hi--it looks like a strikethrough that was supposed to be in the proposal was omitted; I apologize for mistakenly formatting it. Indeed, the proposal will remove the text that you point to. The proposed revision for that section reads: "Complaints may be submitted to our abuse team. In order for the abuse team to follow up on any allegation, the exact location (URL) and nature of the alleged violation must be supplied in the original complaint. Repeated unverified abuse complaints from the same source may be subject to summary rejection."
  As for your second point, the proposed new text does say that the name or contact info provided by the complainant will not be passed on except for copyright complaints.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
CodenameCarrot Tue 17 May 2016 02:53PM UTC
I think the commentary here is how this affects authors and authors being trolled/harassed.
All of the complaints I've put in have been about 'bots posting to the archive. I included an e-mail (one linked with my AO3 account, but not real name) and within a day or two got a thank you from the abuse team and a note that the account would be removed.
I think that with the large number of burner e-mail services, including contact information shouldn't be an issue, but also believe that this should be clearly stated in part 1.
I think that the bigger issue is/will be changes to the abuse form to reflect these policies. Currently the abuse form has 4 fields:
- Link to the page you are reporting (required)
- pick list for complaint type (optional)
- free text for the complaint (required)
- e-mail address (optional)
The form does not include a link to the TOS, and does not explain what leaving the e-mail blank would mean. I am wondering if a checkbox after a blank e-mail "I understand that leaving this email blank may cause issues with ... Blah blah blah ... and that anonymous complaints are less likely to result in action" or not allowing submission without a valid page link could solve this problem and make the abuse teams life easier.
Comment Actions
- Thread
1. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:17AM UTC
  
  Thank you--this is a good point which I will pass on to the coders if the change is adopted.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. CodenameCarrot Sun 22 May 2016 02:46AM UTC
    
    Thanks!
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
pistalrose Tue 17 May 2016 03:38PM UTC

One aspect that I think should be clarified a bit more is "Repeat unverified abuse complaints from the same source may be subject to summary rejection".
I wholeheartedly agree that this is an excellent idea to protect authors. However, it would be good to define "repeat" and/or explain the process by which that decision is made. Such as requiring two or three abuse team members to agree after three unsubstantiated claims. Just an example- I don't know enough about what is realistic nor practical.
In some ways I feel this is nit picky. Because we all know what a troll or overzealous 'rule' enforcer sounds like. But it also seems that in every kind of implosive mess on every type of board the discourse degenerates into accusations of inconsistancy and cronyism. Having a well laid out process could prevent or mitigate that down the line.
Of course, just IMO.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:20AM UTC
  
  Thank you. There's no proposal to change that part of the ToS at the time. The repeat unverified complaints language is already present, and there have been no reports that it's not working well from inside or outside, but we will continue to monitor the issue. Also, as we've discovered, it makes more sense to have the ToS lay out the overall rules, and implementation details such as how many abuse team members are required for a decision to be left as policies, because then they can be more easily updated.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
? (Guest) Tue 17 May 2016 04:46PM UTC

How are you going to differentiate between (expired) burner email and non-existing or wrong email addresses? Which information are you collecting with the abuse form, beyond the information the user has to enter?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:22AM UTC
  
  Right now, we don't propose to require initial confirmation, but if someone is using an email address they don't really have, or don't check, then the result will often be the same: no action, because there's not enough information to proceed. Depending on how this works, however, we may explore other options. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "which information are you collecting"--the abuse team receives the information entered by the user.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
ItsCalledWhiskey Wed 18 May 2016 08:59PM UTC

I agree to whatever methods work to make this a happy, safe, abuse-free environment for us all. I am fairly new to this awesome community and my current story has had some abusive comments. I didn't bother to report them, because if I could kindly explain why those comments weren't appreciated or necessary and defuse the situation myself, it was worth letting someone know a writer who works hard on something just won't stand for that kind of thing. I will keep this in mind for future use if needed! Thank you guys for making this such a great place to express ourselves :)

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:23AM UTC
  
  I'm sorry you experienced that--you should also be able to turn on comment screening or limit comments to registered users if that might help.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
fillory Thu 19 May 2016 01:09PM UTC

this seems like a sensible change. thank you!

Comment Actions
- Thread
aewgliriel Fri 20 May 2016 01:29PM UTC

Can we introduce the function to block users, please? I had a user recently commenting every time I posted that she didn't want one of the characters to be in the story. Her behaviour wasn't technically abuse, but it was annoying.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Eoraptor Sat 21 May 2016 07:43AM UTC
  
  Agreed, many social sites have functionality similar to this, and it eliminates so much friction when you can simply tell someone "if you don't like my stuff, go elsewhere" and then enforce that with a block on their interacting further.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:24AM UTC
    
    I know that's on the radar, but it isn't part of this proposed change. If you haven't already let Support know that you desire this as a feature, please do, because we do track interest in features.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. completetheory Mon 23 May 2016 12:38AM UTC
      
      Sorry to be a pain, but I can't find anywhere to add my support for a block feature. I've been very fortunate in my audience so far, but I have had the odd bad apple and I would really like to throw in an extra vote for a block feature. That would also minimize the work that the abuse team needs to do, surely.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. Rebecca Tushnet (Guest) Mon 23 May 2016 12:41AM UTC
        
        You can send a message via the support form, http://archiveofourown.org/support, which will be added to the list of requests.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. completetheory Mon 23 May 2016 12:51AM UTC
        
        Thank you so much!
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
    3. Snowgrouse Fri 27 May 2016 08:44AM UTC
      
      Thank you. I'm desperate to get a block function as well for some unpleasant folks, and presume a lot of other users want one as well! I'll go and submit a request right away.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
  3. aewgliriel Sun 22 May 2016 05:14AM UTC
    
    This exactly.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
3. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:23AM UTC
  
  I know that's on the radar, but it isn't part of this proposed change. If you haven't already let Support know that you desire this as a feature, please do, because we do track interest in features.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
4. 1. aewgliriel Sun 22 May 2016 05:14AM UTC
    
    Okay, I'll do that.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
5. Pent Tue 24 May 2016 08:34AM UTC
  
  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they tried having a block feature a long time ago, but it put too much pressure on the servers and slowed everything down?
  I would love having this feature as well. It's strange for any website not to have a block feature.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Aj4668 Sat 21 May 2016 02:01AM UTC

With all due respect for the hard work you do to keep this site amazing, this is confusing. I agree with many of the comments above mine, and would add that it needs to be stressed that while the complainant needs to give his/her info, that will NOT be shared with the subject of the complaint, if the complaint is addressed with said subject, unless needed. (It wouldn't be needed if someone posted spam, for example, or something that is clearly not allowed, but may be needed if it's a personal dispute.)
You can also develop a submit form that will not submit unless all required fields are filled in. It's not perfect, because people can always fill in incomplete info, but you can code it to recognize AO3 links, for example, or email addresses.
I think it's hard, and not necessary, to put set standards on what "repeated unverified abuse complaints from the same source" means. This can vary greatly from situation to situation, and ten reports from one person can be abuse, whereas 20 from another may just be earnest attempts at helping, and some education could help. Intent plays a big role.
I think the ability to block other members would help, as well. I do this for a living on a really large website, and the ability to block other members solves a lot of problems.
Thanks for all the hard work I know you do!! It's NOT easy!

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:26AM UTC
  
  Hi--it looks like a strikethrough that was supposed to be in the proposal was omitted; I apologize for mistakenly formatting it. Indeed, the proposal will remove the text that you point to. The proposed revision for that section reads: "Complaints may be submitted to our abuse team. In order for the abuse team to follow up on any allegation, the exact location (URL) and nature of the alleged violation must be supplied in the original complaint. Repeated unverified abuse complaints from the same source may be subject to summary rejection."
  In addition, the proposal includes: "Except in the case of copyright complaints, the name and contact information provided by the complainant will not be disclosed to the user." If that doesn't address your concerns, please let me know.
  We will definitely discuss the form design with the coders.
  In terms of blocking users: I know that's on the radar, but it isn't part of this proposed change. If you haven't already let Support know that you desire this as a feature, please do, because we do track interest in features.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Aj4668 Sun 22 May 2016 01:41AM UTC
    
    Thanks for the reply. I'm all set, and appreciate all that you do for us!
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
Zeborah Sat 21 May 2016 08:34AM UTC

I'm a bit confused too, but it looks to me like the aim of the proposed changes is (despite the implication of your introduction) not to force people to provide a contact email, but rather to remove a (potential) practice the fear of which might make people hesitant to do so.
This seems good to me; on the actual web form you could do more encouraging people to include an email address of some kind, but that doesn't need to be in the ToS.
For clarity, you could amend the last word "user" to "subject of the complaint" (as most often the complainant will also be a user).

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:26AM UTC
  
  Hi--it looks like a strikethrough that was supposed to be in the proposal was omitted; I apologize for mistakenly formatting it. Indeed, the proposal will remove the text that you point to. The proposed revision for that section reads: "Complaints may be submitted to our abuse team. In order for the abuse team to follow up on any allegation, the exact location (URL) and nature of the alleged violation must be supplied in the original complaint. Repeated unverified abuse complaints from the same source may be subject to summary rejection."
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
TheSenpaiWhoNoticedYou Sat 21 May 2016 08:52PM UTC

I do find the wording to be a bit misleading. I mean, there isn't anything that indicates a change other than the title. And what about block users? Honestly, this whole post is more than enough to confuse the hell out of me.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. RebeccaTushnet Sun 22 May 2016 01:28AM UTC
  
  I'm not quite sure I understand your comment, but a strikethrough that was supposed to be in the proposal was omitted; I apologize for mistakenly formatting it. Section 2 will read: "Complaints may be submitted to our abuse team. In order for the abuse team to follow up on any allegation, the exact location (URL) and nature of the alleged violation must be supplied in the original complaint. Repeated unverified abuse complaints from the same source may be subject to summary rejection."
  In terms of blocking users: I know that's on the radar, but it isn't part of this proposed change. If you haven't already let Support know that you desire this as a feature, please do, because we do track interest in features.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. TheSenpaiWhoNoticedYou Sun 22 May 2016 04:12AM UTC
    
    Just reading your reply alone actually cleared up a lot of things. I have, in fact, let Support know that I want to block spam (or pesky) users, so I'll be sitting tight until anything is done. Thank you for replying! Also, you completely understood my comment! Rest assured that even when you seemed confused, you were not.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
Esbe Sun 22 May 2016 05:03AM UTC

Thank you for simplifying things. I've never needed this but did try and read up the legalese initially. (Couldn't recall most of it except some basic stuff that yes I can write what I want, be objective in your comments, etc)
This truly helps

Comment Actions
- Thread
Typosmyown Wed 25 May 2016 05:12AM UTC

Comlaints should come with a source/ supporting info. I support the decision and thank you to all the volunteers!

Comment Actions
- Thread
Somerville Thu 26 May 2016 05:44AM UTC

My instincts are that the ability to submit completely anonymous complaints is a vital safeguard for people in vulnerable situations.
My pronouns are 'they/them'.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. CodenameCarrot Thu 26 May 2016 04:37PM UTC
  
  I agree! My feeling is that the current form, by both not labeling e-mail as required (because it isn't) and not saying what the consequences of no-email are (inability to contact/clarify, de-prioritization due to large number of false/unverifiable/spam/bot complaints, or whatever they might be as implied above) there are probably far more people who leave anonymous complaints than those that feel the need for anonymity.
  So I agree with the changes in 2 - the reporter's information will not be shared with the subject of the complaint unless it's a copywright issue - I am not sure how it will solve the problems listed in the opening paragraph.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Floris_Oren Sun 29 May 2016 08:36PM UTC

Okay, but promise me that you'll actually read the story to make certain it's not just some saw who was triggered because they were lax in reading the tags/warnings? because I'm only slightly worried.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. eyeroll (Guest) Mon 30 May 2016 12:15AM UTC
  
  Abuse always reads the story to make sure the complaint is warranted. Are you new here?
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Floris_Oren Mon 30 May 2016 02:06PM UTC
    
    No. I'm not new, I just never had to put in an abuse report or got any myself so...
    But thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
Chocolatequeen Mon 30 May 2016 02:30PM UTC

I'm a little concerned that if I report a story for copyright violation, the author would get my information. In my experience, those authors are very likely to strike out at the person who dared accuse them of plagiarising. I don't see any reason that it's necessary to bring that down on the head of the reporter.
I say that as someone who has reported copyright violation on multiple sites, and then watched as a user who was banned from an archive went on tumblr and turned it into a sob story. I'm grateful she didn't have my info.
That line might not be new, but regardless, it makes me deeply uncomfortable, and highly unlikely to report copyright violation, which really does need to be taken care of when it happens.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Copyright holder information is not your information (Guest) Mon 30 May 2016 08:53PM UTC
  
  They just mean this bit from the TOS/Provacy Policy: If we receive a complaint about a violation of someone's intellectual property rights, we will disclose the information provided by the rightsholder or the rightsholder's representative to the subject of the complaint.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Chocolatequeen Mon 30 May 2016 10:19PM UTC
    
    That makes sense, but after reading it again, I still don't think that's what it actually says. What it says is that if there is a report of copyright violation, the subject of the report will receive the complaintant's name and contact info. If that isn't what's meant, then the language should be clarified.
    Maybe something like, "In the event of a copyright violation complaint, the subject of the complaint will be privy to all information provided by the rights holder or their representative."
    
    Last Edited Mon 30 May 2016 10:33PM UTC
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. copyright holder, etc (Guest) Mon 30 May 2016 11:46PM UTC
      
      It's a lot clearer taken as part of a whole, taken in context of the TOS as well.
      I see your point. That would be a good change; to paraphrase from the TOS, instead of the new vague language.
      And do you mean reporting copyright violation, or reporting plagiarism? Because they will only give information in the event of copyright violation, at least according to the rest of the privacy policy listed in the TOS.
      If you want to report copyright violation, you could do as the post suggests at the start, and use a burner email address.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. Chocolatequeen Tue 31 May 2016 01:25AM UTC
        
        Technically, plagiarism is a form of copyright violation. I'd forgotten the TOS splits those into two separate categories. And reading through the TOS again, I notice the assumption regarding copyright violation reports is that the person reporting is the one who owns the original work, which is probably where the language I have an issue with is coming from. Is that truly the case the majority of the time?
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. copyright vs plagiarism (Guest) Tue 31 May 2016 01:42AM UTC
        
        Good question! I'm not sure. I think reporting plagiarism is more common, and doesn't require revealing the complainant's information, and copyright violation would be like G.R.R. Martin personally coming to the archive to ask for a take down of ASOIAF works--to which, you would need to reveal to the fanfic authors where this complaint is coming from, but more importantly, share the complainant (Martin)'s information with the legal team, which exists outside of the abuse team. That's my theory, anyway.
        Remember that the OTW is here to protect you as a fan from violating copyright, but the archive is not okay with plagiarism. They are very distinct concepts in the OTW and all of its sub-sites. I can see how if you think of them as the same the new phrasing is disconcerting, as it might read like the archive will tell the accused who accuses them of plagiarism, but that is not actually the case, I think.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
Deres_Umnoste Mon 06 Jun 2016 06:40AM UTC

Um I think this still applies here, a person on the site accidentally (probably) reposted a single work over 10 times. I'd like to file a complaint but I'm not sure how, if you could let me know where to find that information that would be great!

Comment Actions
- Thread

AO3 News