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)

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
    0·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

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

                • glimse@lemmy.world
                  0·
                  6 months ago

                  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?

                  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    0·
                    6 months ago

                    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)

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 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.

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      0·
      6 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 off 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.