4 ms·
How is this different from uploading a hollywood movie to youtube? Just because there is a passage in the terms that the uploader supposedly gave them those rig
by diffeomorphism 5y ago
How is this different from uploading a hollywood movie to youtube? Just because there is a passage in the terms that the uploader supposedly gave them those rights, this does not mean they actually have the power to do that.
- macinjosh 5y agoNot sure how much it would matter but the main difference I see is that if I upload my own code to GitHub I have the ability to give away the IP, but if I upload Avengers End Game to YouTube I don't have the right to give that away.
- makeitdouble 5y agoI wonder how it would work if we consider you flagged your code as GPL before it hits Github. We could end up in the same situation as the Hollywood movie even if you are also the one setting the original license on the work. Basically you have a right to change the license, but it doesn’t mean you do.
- im3w1l 5y agoA very plausible scenario: Alice creates GPL project. Bob forks it and uploads to github. Bob does not have a right to relicense Alices' parts.
- jcranmer 5y agoYou can't give Github or Youtube or anybody else copyright rights if you don't have them in the first place. This is what ultimately torpedoed "Happy Birthday" copyright claims: while it's pretty undisputed that the Hill sisters gave their copyright to (ultimately) Warner/Chapelle, it was the case that they actually didn't invent the lyrics, and thus Warner/Chapelle had no copyright over the lyrics. So if someone uploads a Hollywood movie to Youtube, Youtube doesn't get the rights to play that movie from them because they didn't have the rights in the first place. Of course, if the actual copyright owner uploads it, it's now permissible for Youtube to play it, even if it's the copy that someone else provided. [This has torpedoed a few filesharing lawsuits.]