What is the Legal copyright on a Lemmy Post?
Most instances don't have a specific copyright in their ToS, which is basically how copyright is handled on corporate social media (Meta/X/Reddit owns license rights to whatever you post on their platform when you click "Agree"). I've noticed some people including Copyright notices in posts (mostly to prevent AI use). Is this necessary, or is the creator the automatic copyright owner? Does adding the copyright/license information do anything?
Please note if you have legal credentials in your reply. (I'm in the USA, but I'd be interested to hear about other jurisdictions if there are differences)
You are viewing a single comment
I don't think it really does or can do anything.
I think it makes people feel good, like they're fighting against AI or something.
In my opinion, it just clutters up comments.
It's crazy to me that anyone thinks it does anything. How can someone who cares enough about AI not know the controversies about OpenAI's training data?
The people and organizations building LLMs do not give a fuck if you add that garbage to your comment or not.
Also, good luck to those people if they have to prove an AI was trained with their comment
The biggest time would be it would start to include that link at the end of every comment.
Does that mean creative commons doesn't really mean anything? I have my website cc by sa, thinking or changing it to cc by sa no cc but I feel like companies would still take my stuff from my website.
Depends on what your goal is. Strictly speaking cc by sa is more permissive than putting no copyright notice at all, since copyright is automatic, and the cc licenses grant various permissions not contained in standard copyright. It's just a fancy legalistic way of saying "please credit me if you use this, continue to share in a similar fashion, but not for any commercial purpose".
So if you want people to share your work, cc by sa makes sense.
Not sure but at the very least it's way less annoying to see it on a website than it is under every comment
You're free to block those that use the license, if you find it annoying to see.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
You're free to reply to a week-old comment, too, but neither is a great idea
Actually, five days, not a week.
And also, sometimes its just about making a point, even if you stumble upon something later on. 🤷
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
What is that point?
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
The point you felt was worth making a week later is that I am free to block someone who does something I find kind of annoying?
That seems a little extreme to me. Why would you encourage that?
Again, five days ago. Some people like myself stumble upon a post/comment days and days later from when its initially posted.
Yeah, for some reason people who complain about me using a license seem to keep forgetting that option, but instead just continue to complain, for some strange reason, no matter how many times I remind them of that option. Thought it was a good PSA to remind the complainers they they have alternatives to complaining.
If that seems extreme to you, then you need to touch grass more often.
Extreme would be continuing to complain about something that you have the power to change, but don't change.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
I just had a short chat with someone saying something I agreed. It's not like I'm making posts about it....or replying to week-old comments by someone doing the thing I find annoying.
You have to see the irony in this, right? You are way more annoyed at my comment than I am by your clutter.
Again, its five days since you posted your comment, not a week, and its just seen by me for the first time about two hours ago.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
You (in certain cases your employer) own the copyright to your creations. It's your intellectual property. By adding a license, you give others permission to use your property. That's just good old capitalism.
Your property rights aren't without limit, though. What exactly those are depends on jurisdiction, but you probably can't stop others from archiving your site for their own purposes.
They can't take stuff from your website because piracy isn't stealing.
Agreed. It's like walking around a party with a post-it note stuck to your forehead that says "Don't ask me about watermelons."
All anyone is going to do all night is ask you about watermelons. Every single time.
Yeah, it's unclear whether copyright is even relevant when it comes to training AI. It feels a lot like people who feel very strongly about intellectual property but have clearly confused trademarks, patents, copyright, and maybe even regular old property law - they've got an idea of what they think is "right" and "wrong" but it's not closely attached to any actual legal theory.
those anti ai training links remind me of the "i don't consent to facebook using my data" posts my grandma makes
That’s exactly what it is. It’s born from a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright law works. It’s basically just a Facebook chain letter.
That, plus a healthy dose of fuck copyright.