3 ms·

So if you put a photo up on instagram I can yoink it and use it as I see fit? I suggest reading the legal print: https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/ https://www

So if you put a photo up on instagram I can yoink it and use it as I see fit? I suggest reading the legal print: https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/ https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/ > By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed. It says here I grant Y combinator (and its affiliated companies; hm...) a licence, not that I grant it to some rando with a scrapper (or using an API). Anyone that's not Y combinator (and its affiliated companies; hm....) that's using my content posted here is doing so without any licence to do so from me, potentially violating my copyright rights.

krapp 2y ago
>So if you put a photo up on instagram I can yoink it and use it as I see fit? We're talking about Hacker News, not Instagram. >It says here I grant Y combinator (and its affiliated companies; hm...) a licence, not that I grant it to some rando with a scrapper (or using an API). And yet Hacker News has an API and plenty of people use it, implying that Hacker News considers the use of its own API to be valid within the context of its "license" and by extension any application also using the API. Feel free to lawyer up and sue, though, and let us know how it goes. I don't think it'll go as well as you seem to believe.
- GeoAtreides 2y ago
  Sure, HN is not instagram, but user content is user content. And user content is subjected to copyright laws. The mere fact the API exist doesn't necessarily mean it's legal or that it respect copyright laws. It just means nobody legally tested it yet. My suspicion is that a licence granted to entity only extends to that entity, even if that entity provides content via html or json.

krapp 2y ago

>So if you put a photo up on instagram I can yoink it and use it as I see fit? We're talking about Hacker News, not Instagram. >It says here I grant Y combinator (and its affiliated companies; hm...) a licence, not that I grant it to some rando with a scrapper (or using an API). And yet Hacker News has an API and plenty of people use it, implying that Hacker News considers the use of its own API to be valid within the context of its "license" and by extension any application also using the API. Feel free to lawyer up and sue, though, and let us know how it goes. I don't think it'll go as well as you seem to believe.

GeoAtreides 2y ago
Sure, HN is not instagram, but user content is user content. And user content is subjected to copyright laws. The mere fact the API exist doesn't necessarily mean it's legal or that it respect copyright laws. It just means nobody legally tested it yet. My suspicion is that a licence granted to entity only extends to that entity, even if that entity provides content via html or json.