3 ms·

I suppose, maybe if you don't have a licence on things it's fair game, but I know the Daily Mail has ripped off Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licen

I suppose, maybe if you don't have a licence on things it's fair game, but I know the Daily Mail has ripped off Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licenced works.

Silhouette 11y ago
On the contrary: if you don't have a licence on things, the default assumption should be that the copyright holder has given no permission, just as when the author of the article here didn't respond to a question sent in the middle of the night, that was not a grant of permission to do whatever the person asking wanted. The complication with web sites is that there is inevitably some level of implied consent: if you put a site up and someone visits it normally, they are technically making various copies of your work along the way, without necessarily having any explicit permission from the rightsholder to do so. This is where lawyers argue technicalities about everything from hot-linking to uploading or downloading the latest Hollywood movie.
- jahewson 11y ago
  The copies made during visiting a website are treated as "incidental" copies under the law. What matters is that the author has decided to publish their work and that you are viewing their publication. Of course if you start duplicating their publication for your own ends, then it stops being incidental.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    Careful: The law in this area isn't necessarily the same in all jurisdictions. Even within the EU there have been relatively few test cases so far and unless I've missed something recent the position with temporary copies is still not entirely clear. Sadly, the past few years have seen lawyers argue the minutiae of EU directives and national IP laws to the extent that any original intention or moral or economic justification for copyright has long been forgotten. Basically, this has become exactly the kind of area that gets lawyers and legal systems a bad reputation, where sometimes quite significant amounts of power are being assigned based on obscure technicalities in how laws at different levels of government have been drafted.
joepie91_ 11y ago
Somebody already addressed part of it, but here's an introductory guide to how licensing works: http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/03/21/licensing-for-beginners/ http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/03/21/licensing-for-beg...

I suppose, maybe if you don't have a licence on things it's fair game, but I know the Daily Mail has ripped off Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licenced works.

Silhouette 11y ago

On the contrary: if you don't have a licence on things, the default assumption should be that the copyright holder has given no permission, just as when the author of the article here didn't respond to a question sent in the middle of the night, that was not a grant of permission to do whatever the person asking wanted. The complication with web sites is that there is inevitably some level of implied consent: if you put a site up and someone visits it normally, they are technically making various copies of your work along the way, without necessarily having any explicit permission from the rightsholder to do so. This is where lawyers argue technicalities about everything from hot-linking to uploading or downloading the latest Hollywood movie.

jahewson 11y ago
The copies made during visiting a website are treated as "incidental" copies under the law. What matters is that the author has decided to publish their work and that you are viewing their publication. Of course if you start duplicating their publication for your own ends, then it stops being incidental.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  Careful: The law in this area isn't necessarily the same in all jurisdictions. Even within the EU there have been relatively few test cases so far and unless I've missed something recent the position with temporary copies is still not entirely clear. Sadly, the past few years have seen lawyers argue the minutiae of EU directives and national IP laws to the extent that any original intention or moral or economic justification for copyright has long been forgotten. Basically, this has become exactly the kind of area that gets lawyers and legal systems a bad reputation, where sometimes quite significant amounts of power are being assigned based on obscure technicalities in how laws at different levels of government have been drafted.

joepie91_ 11y ago

Somebody already addressed part of it, but here's an introductory guide to how licensing works: http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/03/21/licensing-for-beginners/ http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/03/21/licensing-for-beg...