Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

This is already a problem with anyone who ever copypastes from Stack Overflow. You're all violating CC-BY-SA[0] and nobody really cares about this.

[0] https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing



sort by: page size:

Stack Overflow answers are licensed under a CC BY-SA license.[0] If you copy and paste a function without (at least) linking to the question, isn't that copyright infringement?

[0] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/


StackExchange content is licensed under Creative Commons.

http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/stack-overflow-creativ...


Well, somebody should then copyright the whole contents of https://libraryofbabel.info/

:)


If you think that's bad, you should see the many people who tried to copyright an empty file: http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/humor/ATT_Copyright_true.html

That appears to be true for the https://hughrundle.net website. It would be unreasonable for the author to complain about consent for people sharing his blog posts anywhere after publishing a public license granting consent to the whole world to do just that (as long as people are following the license).

It does not appear to be true for the https://ausglam.space/@hugh Mastodon account. Copying the Mastodon posts and sharing them on Twitter without permission is a copyright violation, and generally rude.


It's copyright, not copywrite

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copywrite


That hasn't protected copywritten works in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....

The problem: its value. People will steal this.

https://xkcd.com/538/


Also, who is on the hook when your app outputs copyrighted material? https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/things-are-about-to-get-a-...

Note the copyright implications, too - these outlets claim copyright on every word, including the copypasta, and never distinguish what they actually do own copyright too; and don't.

The article itself lists three other recent examples, two of which are clearly copyright infringement https://twitter.com/DocSparse/status/1581461734665367554

It is not a theoretical concern


I posted a copyrighted work on Destroy All Software, which offers paid subscriptions to that same work. You found a link designed to be shared as a sample and decided to copy my commercial work in full, on your website, behind your own login wall. You didn't ask first, or even tell me that you'd done it.

Links to that work convert into paying customers, which is how I buy food and pay my mortgage. You're not only infringing on my copyrighted work, but also depriving my small business of revenue. Remove the infringing copy of my work from your site immediately.


My feeling is that you should be able to imitate something without infringing on copyright, but not everyone agrees:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyr...


This misunderstanding of copyright is extremely common among programmers. He probably should have read this classic before writing so much:

https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23


In this case, however, the original author is not enforcing their copyright: https://blog.adafruit.com/2022/06/16/david-ahl-places-all-hi...

Here's the actual complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39856344/oraclevsgoogle

I don't see too much about the copyright claims in here, though.


You 'claim copyright', eh?

http://ask.yahoo.com/20041213.html


Blatant copyright infringement, with no attribution. This was originally published here: http://www.27bslash6.com/missy.html

An article on copyrights and Twitter was posted a few days ago: http://www.canyoucopyrightatweet.com/
next

Legal | privacy