• Snot Flickerman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • @leopold@lemmy.kde.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      207 months ago

      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.

      • Snot Flickerman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        137 months ago

        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.

        • @leopold@lemmy.kde.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          167 months ago

          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.

          • Snot Flickerman
            link
            fedilink
            English
            87 months ago

            current copyright laws make zero sense if you actually stop and think about it for any amount of time.

            So true.

            • kbal
              link
              fedilink
              117 months ago

              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.

      • lemmyvore
        link
        fedilink
        English
        67 months ago

        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.

        • @leopold@lemmy.kde.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          57 months ago

          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.

      • lemmyvore
        link
        fedilink
        English
        47 months ago

        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.

        • @leopold@lemmy.kde.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          57 months ago

          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.

          • lemmyvore
            link
            fedilink
            English
            37 months ago

            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.

    • @averyminya@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      127 months ago

      Wait lol are people posting that to their comments to use it as claimed ownership? I did not realize that was the intent there