Sarna and MWO

[Ck16]

So I have a few questions here I guess over Sarna and MWo. Basically how they relate now?

First it seems that the PGI created varriants are now being a thing in the Mechs profiles on Sarna, although considered apocryphal, it is interesting that these are mentioned here. With the addition of the Roughneck to MWO and it's offical (I think here) canonization here by Randal him self. Does this make MWO apocryphal content cannon to a degree?

Second part, I think many would say here, Alex at PGI has re-envisioned most of the mechs very well. So what am I getting at here? Why doesn't Sarna atleast tag at the bottom of each mechs page have the MWO concept art posted along with each mech? 

[ANS Kamas P81]

Sarna's a fan run site and has no connection to CGL or other powers that be.  If they added in MWO info, that's their own thing; it has no bearing on the game.

[SteelRaven]

apocryphal references also include Crescent Hawk and MechWarrior 4 Mercenary variants. They even list some Dark Age variants that never got official record sheets, they seem to try to list every variant with the exception of fan variants. 

[BrokenMnemonic]

So I have a few questions here I guess over Sarna and MWo. Basically how they relate now?

First it seems that the PGI created varriants are now being a thing in the Mechs profiles on Sarna, although considered apocryphal, it is interesting that these are mentioned here. With the addition of the Roughneck to MWO and it's offical (I think here) canonization here by Randal him self. Does this make MWO apocryphal content cannon to a degree?

Everything that isn't fully canonical, but isn't fanon, is effectively apocryphal as far as Sarna is concerned. Our position on MechWarrior Online is listed on the article page:

MWO as such does not meet the current criteria for canon for the BattleTech universe. As an official product with a valid license, it can be regarded as apocryphal. Herbert A. Beas II, who was BattleTech Line Developer at the time, expressly confirmed in an official chat that MWO would not be canonical per se[1], i.e. it would not be in a position to add events, characters or other content to the canon of the BattleTech universe.
However, in 2016 then-Line Developer Randall N. Bills overruled this to an extent when he expressly stated[2] that the fluff provided for MWO's Hero 'Mechs was fully canonical for BattleTech. Mind that this technically only applies to the text, not to the visual appearance or game stats.

Note that rulings from the Line Developers like the one cited above have been revoked, updated, amended or replaced in other areas over the years, so what's apocryphal and what's canonical does change over time. Sarna tries to track everything BattleTech that it can, though - with the exception of fanon.

Second part, I think many would say here, Alex at PGI has re-envisioned most of the mechs very well. So what am I getting at here? Why doesn't Sarna atleast tag at the bottom of each mechs page have the MWO concept art posted along with each mech?

Two main reasons for this.

1. You have to be careful where fair use and art is concerned. There hasn't been a discussion I'm aware of on the site yet about whether to upload MWO art, although art is appearing for those things that are specific to MWO and not represented in the canon material produced by CGL or its predecessors - so things like the symbol of the new Periphery state are in there somewhere.

2.  The "core" editing team on Sarna - by which I mean the people like me who show up regularly and do stuff - is about six people. There's a metric gigaton of BattleTech stuff out there that isn't on Sarna. Everyone tends to work on stuff that they find interesting, barring other urgent priorities (by which I mean things like plagiarised material being found on the site) dictate that something get jumped on immediately. Everyone tends to have things they work on in particular. Wrangler's usually the first on the scene when it comes to adding new units, although I tend to race him for the WarShips. Frabby works extensively on adding detail from the novels and short stories. Doneve does huge bulk edits on things like planet and system histories or anything else where lots of specific changes need to be made. Nuclear-Fridge spends his life correcting spelling mistakes, updating grammar, and so on. ClanWolverine101 is on personal mission to add every known fact about Wolf's Dragoons. I bounce around a lot, but I tend to do a lot of work on planet articles and historical detail. Cyc also works on all sorts of stuff, but is responsible for the bulk of the MWO detail that's on there at the moment. So, why aren't things like the MWO concept art on there? Because no-one's gotten to it yet. Maybe no-one's thought of it. Maybe no-one's had time. Maybe it's something else completely. Sarna is a really tiny outfit that relies on the efforts of volunteers.

Anyone can edit Sarna though - (unless you're on a banned list for vandalism or spamming) - so you could add the concept art, if you felt so inclined. The more volunteers, the merrier.

[ColBosch]

Okay, one thing, and this is very important, Fair Use is a specific doctrine in US law.  It mostly covers the ability for reviewers, critics, and educators to include a "reasonable" amount of copyrighted material without need to ask permission, pay royalties, or sign a contract. It does not cover or allow the use of copyrighted material in any other context. It very certainly does not include fan Wikis; those can and have been taken down by IP owners. That said, the owners of the BattleTech IP have taken a hands-off approach to fan sites, which is a form of legal permission. Once you have explicit (or strongly implicit) permission, you don't even need Fair Use.

[Dmon]

I think Cyc and myself are the only ones who really update the Sarna MWO article very often and I am busy with uni at the moment.

[Ck16]

Okay, one thing, and this is very important, Fair Use is a specific doctrine in US law.  It mostly covers the ability for reviewers, critics, and educators to include a "reasonable" amount of copyrighted material without need to ask permission, pay royalties, or sign a contract. It does not cover or allow the use of copyrighted material in any other context. It very certainly does not include fan Wikis; those can and have been taken down by IP owners. That said, the owners of the BattleTech IP have taken a hands-off approach to fan sites, which is a form of legal permission. Once you have explicit (or strongly implicit) permission, you don't even need Fair Use.

So is that why Battletech artworks are posted while Mechwarrior titles have not? (Although oddly MW4 artworks are on there)

I would help getting all the artwork collected up I could, but would we be allowed to post it up if all proper credits were given to PGI and Alex?

[Adrian Gideon]

I would suggest not mixing anything from PGI with anything else there.

[SteelRaven]

While BT and MWO do their best to keep the BTU brand somewhat united, MWO has always been it's own animal and arguable needs to be to survive as a MMO. Many excellent BT builds don't work in MWO, many MWO builds are dead fish on the table top, many are not even possible in MWO (Black Knight Ian/Paritsan will not have a hatchet) Also artwork has not only been divisive legally since FASA split the IP but divisive among fans who continue to argue over aesthetics regarding the constant changing art styles of BTU's walking tanks.

Plenty of fan art sits are showcasing Alex's art not including PGI itself, it's usually the first thing that pops up on Google so I don't think it's as necessary to Sarna as artwork artwork directly related to BT, especially that pre-internet art that can be so hard to find.   

[Ck16]

Alright, well I am currently editing the MK II currently on Sarna with the MWO variants similar to how you guys are doing this. I can click the save button if you think it would be ok.

[Cyc]

Guess I should speak up given my name and the topic of most of my recent Sarna edits has cropped up. I doubt it, but CK16 might also know me better as CycKath from MWO as well. As others have pointed I'm just one of many Sarna editors so what follows is largely my opinion as well.

MWO info on Sarna - It was so much easier under Russ than Randall, everything was apocryphal no exceptions. But now we have mixed messages and lack of certainty. Even with the claim of "only the fluff", I view that as Randall written fluff only (the lore blueprint stories), but others see it as any non-stat MWO hero 'Mech fluff like the names PGI invent. Even the Roughneck being canon supposedly came from a MechCon 2016 panel with Randall and Alex, and cannot find any written response from Randall or CGL to back that up. Ultimately though Sarna needs to nut out a more formal policy to ensure certainty and consensus on this.

MWO art on Sarna - I could add hundred of MWO images today, but Sarna is intended as a wiki and not a resource of every piece of BattleTech imagery ever. Debate exists on how much art should be included (does every single image for a book, out of print or not, need to be included? how notable does an image need to be to be uploaded) and even if video game imagery should be include anywhere than on the page for that game and just as an example. Again, Sarna editors need to come to consensus.

Long story short, both your questions are probably best directed to Sarna ON Sarna, either via the wiki or the Sarna forums. Sarna isn't an official source (and too many MWO players treat it as such) and while the people who edit there often post on these forums, these forums aren't the best place for Sarna discussion.

[ColBosch]

I would suggest not mixing anything from PGI with anything else there.

I'd suggest listening to Ray here, gents, no matter what I said before.

[Frabby]

Late to the party, and BrokenMnemonic already gave a good answer. The only thing perhaps left to add are the Sarna policies:

The Sarna BattleTechWiki is an inofficial community project. Every BattleTech fan is invited to add or edit content within the scope of the wiki project.
That scope is determined via community consensus, and has led to the development of a number of self-imposed policies.
The policies most pertinent to this thread are (in no particular order):

• Policy: Notability, which basically states that anything to do with BattleTech warrants mention on the wiki;
• Policy: Canon, which clarifies that while Sarna cannot decide on what is canon and what is not, it assumes full canonicity of all products and information by default and highlights those that do not meet the official (CGL) criteria for canon;
• Policy: Images, which governs the use of BattleTech graphic art on the Sarna wiki and notably includes the caveat that Sarna is not an image repository (because of the limits of the Fair Use doctrine)

MWO may not be a source of canonical information (Hero 'Mech fluff nonwithstanding; see below) but it is an official BattleTech publication so it does warrant inclusion on Sarna, like all other BattleTech-related computer games.
Their altered 'Mech art was not a big deal. Side-by-side versus CGL's artwork, the MWO art is simply "wrong". That even holds true with the upcoming HBS game re-using the same wrong art.
However, both MWO and the HBS game seem to have a vast impact and garner a lot of attention among a wide audience. That may be reason enough to add their 'Mech model images to the respective 'Mech's article. It's not exactly high up on my own to-do list for Sarna; but every editor is welcome to take up the task. ;)

And finally, the Randall Bills statement about MWO Hero 'Mech fluff. He said that here, as a side remark to a question I had asked but still as part of an official Line Developer ruling, and in doing so flat out declared MWO Hero 'Mech fluff canon.
That ruling was made when Randall was personally writing the fluff for most (all?) of the Hero 'Mechs, and it does cause some kinks in canon where said fluff describes a 'Mech that couldn't be built with BattleTech construction rules, or where timeline inconsistencies or anachronisms creep up. It's a bit of a mess, and a nightmare to accurately cover on Sarna.
The MOW Hero 'Mechs are actually one of my near future projects, once I get my "list of minor mercenary unit" articles done.

[ColBosch]

Policy: Images, which governs the use of BattleTech graphic art on the Sarna wiki and notably includes the caveat that Sarna is not an image repository (because of the limits of the Fair Use doctrine)

Hey. Listen. You guys absolutely need to learn what Fair Use actually is before you get yourselves into trouble. It does not cover Sarna-style Wikis. I posted a summary above, but don't take my word for it. Google "Fair Use" and look at the actual laws.

[Wrangler]

Other words, don't put anything MWO on there period.  Mention it exists in brief statement and stick to Canon stuff in mainstream Battletech.

[Frabby]

Other words, don't put anything MWO on there period.  Mention it exists in brief statement and stick to Canon stuff in mainstream Battletech.

That's not how Sarna works. Check out the Notability policy I linked above.
Every official BattleTech product or publication belongs on Sarna, and even Fan works if they are somewhat notable. Though we do highlight canonicity problems if and where we see them.

[ColBosch]

I don't think you understand. Nobody here is talking about notability, or the mere mention of a product. The discussion is about posting copyrighted information and images from sources other than Catalyst Game Labs and its direct predecessors. Randall's decree that what he writes for MWO is canon in no way magically allows Sarna to use their copyrighted information or images without PGI's permission in addition to Catalyst's.

[Adrian Gideon]

Thanks Bosch, and yeah.

[Dubble_g]

I would have thought copyright and fair use laws were designed to balance the investment of the copyright holder against the public interest in the content.

In this case, I fail to see how informing people of the MWO designs harms PGI in any way. Still images are not competing in the same market as video games. If PGI was selling art books based on MWO there might be some issue, but otherwise the educational value of showing people what the mechs look like would seem to me to justify it.

If it really is a no-no guess a lot of users on this site are going to have to change their avatars...

[cavingjan]

That is for the IP holder to grant. Consider it an opt in requirement rather than an opt out.

[ColBosch]

I am not a lawyer. Leonard French is. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvdiUstJZg0

[Bosefius]

This thread has been locked. The discussion of legality of other web sites (especially fan sites) has no place on the official company forums. Please, as Cyc suggested above, direct your questions to the appropriate web sites forums, not here.

Thank you,

The Management