4 ms·
That appears to be true for the https://hughrundle.net https://hughrundle.net website. It would be unreasonable for the author to complain about consent for peo
by Zak 4y ago
That appears to be true for the https://hughrundle.net 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 https://ausglam.space/@hugh Mastodon account. Copying the Mastodon posts and sharing them on Twitter without permission is a copyright violation, and generally rude.
- justsomehnguy 4y agoThe problem here is what a person who is willfully slaps CC-BY on their [personal] content (and a librarian to boot) should understand the caveats of providing a public access to their opinions. Instead there are "I'm suddenly feel offended because people quote my public opinion without explicitly asking me if they are allowed to do so". > without permission is a copyright violation It has nothing to do with a copyright, especially if the quoting (in any way) was done with attribution. > and generally rude If it was taken out from a non-public medium (I'm not even sure if Mastodon has this functionality[0]) then sure, but as I understand this is not what happened here. Note: I checked that M. instance[1] and there is no signage about content ownership or anything like that. [0] looks like it doesn't? https://ausglam.space/@hugh/109321247180285447 https://ausglam.space/@hugh/109321247180285447 [1] https://ausglam.space/about/more https://ausglam.space/about/more