Wait, off topic, does posting a anti commercial license to a comment made on someone else’s network and platform and storage actually provide you durable rights related to the usage of your comment content?
Could that ever be defended if the network maintainers don’t themselves support and agree to that?
Probably not lol. Seems to me more along the lines of those folks copy/pasting the whole “I hereby claim that nothing on my Facebook can be used without my permission” on Facebook.
For facebook and big corporations, you usually agree to the ToS/EULA before you actively using their services. The clause there usually protects their ass by stating you give them the license to basically do whatever the fuck they want. Sometimes even giving up the copyright entirely, like some CLA when contributing to open source projects.
But lemmy, as far as I remember, don’t have such term. So it is an interesting question since if the instance doesn’t impose a legal requirement for you to give the instance a license to do anything besides storing and serving it verbatim (like many other user-content sites. deviantart comes to mind since the user can license their image iirc). And yes, words or a string of words can be copyrighted and licensed because we do have protection for books and other text material.
They’re mislabeling the license too. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 has nothing to do with “anti-commercial-AI.” It provides some terms for using content and, in theory if OP is willing to take someone to court, should provide some basis if the license is being abused. Until there’s actual precedence, though, it’s debatable whether or not sucking up CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 content is a breach of the license. For it to actually matter, someone needs to demonstrably prove 1) CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 content was sucked up by AI, 2) it was their content and it was licensed at the time, 3) the terms of the license were violated, and 4) other legal shit that will pop up during the course of the litigation. “Someone” has to be someone with deep fucking pockets willing to go the distance in many international jurisdictions.
I wouldn’t dare call it mislabelling since there is no precedent yet. Just the other day a judge ruled AI generated CSAM is still CSAM. If it can be proven beyond a doubt that an AI output comes from copyrighted works without proper license, will that AI violate the copyright? Also, will AI count as derivatives work from the training material or will it be treated like software compiler? I think a lot of our current legal framework is not up to speed to answer those questions. So I would not call it useless nor misleading.
Also, lemmy doesn’t have EULA as far as I am aware of so the license of the content hosted on the instance is by default unlicensed. The user just notifies that to whoever wants to use their comment for whatever purpose, must abide by those licenses.
Calling a license by anything other than its name and stated purpose is something I’d dare to call mislabeling. If CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 decides to add “anti-commercial-AI” then and only then is it not mislabeling. That’s like me calling the US copyrights of the books sitting next to me “anti-bitfucker” licenses. They have nothing to do with you at this point in time so it is misleading for me to claim otherwise.
While you are correct that lemmy itself does not add a license and many instances do not add a license, it’s not as simple as “the user notifies [you] must abides by [their] licenses.” Jurisdiction matters. The Fediverse host content is pulled from matters. Other myriad factors matter. As you correctly pointed out, there is no precedence for any of this so as I pointed out unless you’re willing to go to court and can prove damages it is actually useless.
Calling a license by anything other than its name and stated purpose is something I’d dare to call mislabeling.
Fair point. The explanation itself has to be detached from the license to make it clear. So for example, if I state that my comment here is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, it only states the license, WHY I licensed it as such is the explanation and not the label for the license. So yeah, without context (the why), it is mislabeling.
While you are correct that lemmy itself does not add a license and many instances do not add a license, it’s not as simple as “the user notifies [you] must abides by [their] licenses.” Jurisdiction matters. The Fediverse host content is pulled from matters. Other myriad factors matter.
But that is true for all content on the internet no? The difference is this time we are talking about a user-generated content without explicit license, now has an explicit license.
As you correctly pointed out, there is no precedence for any of this so as I pointed out unless you’re willing to go to court and can prove damages it is actually useless.
I wouldn’t call it useless tho. After all, we will only push the legal framework because people are doing something wack.
That’s fair. I don’t disagree with licensing comments necessarily. I think users doing it to provide the basis for a legal argument is fine. I think my pushback comes from my lack of trust in any of these users actually acting on their license which could be construed as victim-shaming. I’m hung up on the follow-through which careful analysis like yours really highlights.
It also adds clutter and noise to a public space, making it more irritating to scroll through comments. It’s like someone having a private conversation on speaker phone while you’re waiting in line at a Starbucks or whatever.
I feel like a better analogy is someone who signs their text messages which is a more recent problem than people with obnoxiously long forum signatures.
Wait, off topic, does posting a anti commercial license to a comment made on someone else’s network and platform and storage actually provide you durable rights related to the usage of your comment content?
Could that ever be defended if the network maintainers don’t themselves support and agree to that?
Probably not lol. Seems to me more along the lines of those folks copy/pasting the whole “I hereby claim that nothing on my Facebook can be used without my permission” on Facebook.
I thought the same.
For facebook and big corporations, you usually agree to the ToS/EULA before you actively using their services. The clause there usually protects their ass by stating you give them the license to basically do whatever the fuck they want. Sometimes even giving up the copyright entirely, like some CLA when contributing to open source projects.
But lemmy, as far as I remember, don’t have such term. So it is an interesting question since if the instance doesn’t impose a legal requirement for you to give the instance a license to do anything besides storing and serving it verbatim (like many other user-content sites. deviantart comes to mind since the user can license their image iirc). And yes, words or a string of words can be copyrighted and licensed because we do have protection for books and other text material.
They’re mislabeling the license too. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 has nothing to do with “anti-commercial-AI.” It provides some terms for using content and, in theory if OP is willing to take someone to court, should provide some basis if the license is being abused. Until there’s actual precedence, though, it’s debatable whether or not sucking up CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 content is a breach of the license. For it to actually matter, someone needs to demonstrably prove 1) CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 content was sucked up by AI, 2) it was their content and it was licensed at the time, 3) the terms of the license were violated, and 4) other legal shit that will pop up during the course of the litigation. “Someone” has to be someone with deep fucking pockets willing to go the distance in many international jurisdictions.
I wouldn’t dare call it mislabelling since there is no precedent yet. Just the other day a judge ruled AI generated CSAM is still CSAM. If it can be proven beyond a doubt that an AI output comes from copyrighted works without proper license, will that AI violate the copyright? Also, will AI count as derivatives work from the training material or will it be treated like software compiler? I think a lot of our current legal framework is not up to speed to answer those questions. So I would not call it useless nor misleading.
Also, lemmy doesn’t have EULA as far as I am aware of so the license of the content hosted on the instance is by default unlicensed. The user just notifies that to whoever wants to use their comment for whatever purpose, must abide by those licenses.
Calling a license by anything other than its name and stated purpose is something I’d dare to call mislabeling. If CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 decides to add “anti-commercial-AI” then and only then is it not mislabeling. That’s like me calling the US copyrights of the books sitting next to me “anti-bitfucker” licenses. They have nothing to do with you at this point in time so it is misleading for me to claim otherwise.
While you are correct that lemmy itself does not add a license and many instances do not add a license, it’s not as simple as “the user notifies [you] must abides by [their] licenses.” Jurisdiction matters. The Fediverse host content is pulled from matters. Other myriad factors matter. As you correctly pointed out, there is no precedence for any of this so as I pointed out unless you’re willing to go to court and can prove damages it is actually useless.
Fair point. The explanation itself has to be detached from the license to make it clear. So for example, if I state that my comment here is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, it only states the license, WHY I licensed it as such is the explanation and not the label for the license. So yeah, without context (the why), it is mislabeling.
But that is true for all content on the internet no? The difference is this time we are talking about a user-generated content without explicit license, now has an explicit license.
I wouldn’t call it useless tho. After all, we will only push the legal framework because people are doing something wack.
That’s fair. I don’t disagree with licensing comments necessarily. I think users doing it to provide the basis for a legal argument is fine. I think my pushback comes from my lack of trust in any of these users actually acting on their license which could be construed as victim-shaming. I’m hung up on the follow-through which careful analysis like yours really highlights.
Idk, but does it matter? it’s just a link.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Well, it propagates an illusion of legal mandate which is unrealistic, bordering on misinformation.
It also adds clutter and noise to a public space, making it more irritating to scroll through comments. It’s like someone having a private conversation on speaker phone while you’re waiting in line at a Starbucks or whatever.
I feel like a better analogy is someone who signs their text messages which is a more recent problem than people with obnoxiously long forum signatures.
Good point, that’s much more apt
deleted by creator