This might be funnier than all those Facebook accounts with warnings about “I do not authorize anyone to use my photos!”
Because they’re trying to copyright an internet comment that they posted on a service hosted by someone else, with a creative commons license attached. It’s like a step up in knowing how shit works, but still not knowing enough.
If you really want ownership over what you say… don’t post it on the fucking internet.
I mean, not really. You own the stuff you create regardless of who’s hosting it. Microsoft doesn’t own the copyright for the millions of projects hosted on GitHub either.
I mean, probably not. That’s such a short post, chances are courts wouldn’t find it copyrightable. And obviously attaching a license at the end of your comments is useless in practice, because no one on the internet actually properly engages with copyright law. Plus suing over copy-pasting someone’s social media post is dumb as hell and no one does that, tho I do think you could technically do it and win, because current copyright laws make zero sense if you actually stop and think about it for any amount of time.
My lawyers will argue that this willful infringement of my rights as the orignal author of the famous 1997 Internet comment “So true” means that you now owe me $4000000 in damages, but I’ll settle for one bitcoin.
You own the original, which you’ve written on your pc or phone. But the one that ends up on the website is a copy, on which you’ve granted the website owner a non-revokable license to do with as they please ie. a copy-right.
Not really. You’ve granted the owner some rights, such as the right to host your content and present it to any user on the platform, but they don’t own it. Twitter can’t start using any art hosted on their platform for their branding, because it’s no theirs.
They can if the license you granted them says they can. Read it. These platforms usually make you grant then extensive rights. Yes they don’t own the content but given such broad permissions it makes very little practical difference.
And yet Microsoft made Copilot, and there are currently lots of clueless programmers out there using it to inject code with god knows what licenses into their company’s software.
Which hasn’t been free of legal challenges. Current copyright law doesn’t account for machine learning, which is what allows them to do this. This could soon change.
I use pigeons and let the wind tell me where to send them.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
This might be funnier than all those Facebook accounts with warnings about “I do not authorize anyone to use my photos!”
Because they’re trying to copyright an internet comment that they posted on a service hosted by someone else, with a creative commons license attached. It’s like a step up in knowing how shit works, but still not knowing enough.
If you really want ownership over what you say… don’t post it on the fucking internet.
I mean, not really. You own the stuff you create regardless of who’s hosting it. Microsoft doesn’t own the copyright for the millions of projects hosted on GitHub either.
I use pigeons and let the wind tell me where to send them.
So is other guy gonna sue me now and win because I just copy and pasted what they said? This is a joke.
I mean, probably not. That’s such a short post, chances are courts wouldn’t find it copyrightable. And obviously attaching a license at the end of your comments is useless in practice, because no one on the internet actually properly engages with copyright law. Plus suing over copy-pasting someone’s social media post is dumb as hell and no one does that, tho I do think you could technically do it and win, because current copyright laws make zero sense if you actually stop and think about it for any amount of time.
So true.
My lawyers will argue that this willful infringement of my rights as the orignal author of the famous 1997 Internet comment “So true” means that you now owe me $4000000 in damages, but I’ll settle for one bitcoin.
You own the original, which you’ve written on your pc or phone. But the one that ends up on the website is a copy, on which you’ve granted the website owner a non-revokable license to do with as they please ie. a copy-right.
Not really. You’ve granted the owner some rights, such as the right to host your content and present it to any user on the platform, but they don’t own it. Twitter can’t start using any art hosted on their platform for their branding, because it’s no theirs.
They can if the license you granted them says they can. Read it. These platforms usually make you grant then extensive rights. Yes they don’t own the content but given such broad permissions it makes very little practical difference.
And yet Microsoft made Copilot, and there are currently lots of clueless programmers out there using it to inject code with god knows what licenses into their company’s software.
Which hasn’t been free of legal challenges. Current copyright law doesn’t account for machine learning, which is what allows them to do this. This could soon change.
They’re not going to be absolved of copying code verbatim without following its license.
they’ll be absolved because they’re a corporation
Are you trying to… copyright your comment? IPoAC existed prior to your comment.
I really need a link to a blurb about the CC thing, but not today. Basically think AI.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Fair enough
There’s an RFC for that
TIL, thanks 😄
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0