Wanting to talk to other human beings and only getting responses from AI/LLMs is horrible, and a detriment the humanity solving its problems (which may be the point).
Copyright usually exists simply by them writing the comment. By adding a license they are communicating to others under what terms the comment is being made available to you .
It’s an anti commercial license. The thought is that, they don’t mind if people copy their comments, save them, re use them, etcetera, they just don’t want people to make money off of them, likely this is a response to AI companies profiting off of user comments
However I’m not sure if just linking the license without context that the comment itself is meant to be licensed as such would be effective. If it came down to brass tacks I don’t know if it would hold up.
Instead they should say something like
‘this work is licensed under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license’
I’m also not sure how it works with the licenses of the instance it’s posted on, and the instances that federate with, store and reproduce the content.
I just think they don’t understand how copyright and licenses work. If you create a work, you own the copyright. If you license it to someone (even when using a restrictive CC license) you are granting them rights that they hadn’t before. It doesn’t get more restrictive than just not licensing your comment.
I’m also not sure how it works with the licenses of the instance it’s posted on, and the instances that federate with, store and reproduce the content.
My understanding is a license would stays with the content, no matter where the content is replicated. I also declare that my content is licensed in my user account description as well.
As far as the labeling goes, I normally have it say a little more than what I did in my last comment. Having read your comment and double checking on the Creative Commons site, I did decide to change it to be more descriptive as you advised.
But if you go back through my personal comment history, about nine and a half months or so, you’ll see that there’s been a large quantity conversation about this licensing link, so having just recently returned to Lemmy I was trying to shorten it down, figuring just the actual license information itself was enough of the declaration.
Wanting to talk to other human beings and only getting responses from AI/LLMs is horrible, and a detriment the humanity solving its problems (which may be the point).
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Friend did you just copyright your lemmy comment under creative Commons v4?
Copyright usually exists simply by them writing the comment. By adding a license they are communicating to others under what terms the comment is being made available to you .
What is the link for?
Why would this prevent us from doing anything?
It’s an anti commercial license. The thought is that, they don’t mind if people copy their comments, save them, re use them, etcetera, they just don’t want people to make money off of them, likely this is a response to AI companies profiting off of user comments
However I’m not sure if just linking the license without context that the comment itself is meant to be licensed as such would be effective. If it came down to brass tacks I don’t know if it would hold up.
Instead they should say something like
‘this work is licensed under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license’
I’m also not sure how it works with the licenses of the instance it’s posted on, and the instances that federate with, store and reproduce the content.
Sounds like some sovereign citizen bullshit to me.
People deserve more control over their data and lives but lets not go kidding ourselves.
I just think they don’t understand how copyright and licenses work. If you create a work, you own the copyright. If you license it to someone (even when using a restrictive CC license) you are granting them rights that they hadn’t before. It doesn’t get more restrictive than just not licensing your comment.
My understanding is a license would stays with the content, no matter where the content is replicated. I also declare that my content is licensed in my user account description as well.
As far as the labeling goes, I normally have it say a little more than what I did in my last comment. Having read your comment and double checking on the Creative Commons site, I did decide to change it to be more descriptive as you advised.
But if you go back through my personal comment history, about nine and a half months or so, you’ll see that there’s been a large quantity conversation about this licensing link, so having just recently returned to Lemmy I was trying to shorten it down, figuring just the actual license information itself was enough of the declaration.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0