this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
90 points (90.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26701 readers
3654 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics.


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 76 points 5 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Also, good luck to those people if they have to prove an AI was trained with their comment

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

The biggest time would be it would start to include that link at the end of every comment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not sure but at the very least it's way less annoying to see it on a website than it is under every comment

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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)~

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're free to reply to a week-old comment, too, but neither is a great idea

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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)~

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

What is that point?

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)~

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The point you felt was worth making a week later

Again, five days ago. Some people like myself stumble upon a post/comment days and days later from when its initially posted.

is that I am free to block someone who does something I find kind of annoying?

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.

That seems a little extreme to me.

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)~

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

or replying to week-old comments by someone doing the thing I find annoying.

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)~

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

A 2 day difference doesn't make it less of a weird thing to do. Sorry you're so butthurt that I rolled my eyes at the useless crap in your comments that commercial AI companies are going to ignore.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

They can't take stuff from your website because piracy isn't stealing.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

those anti ai training links remind me of the "i don't consent to facebook using my data" posts my grandma makes

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

That, plus a healthy dose of fuck copyright.