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)

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • XEAL
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

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

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

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

    • /home/pineapplelover
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        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 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.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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.