5 ms·

> under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.

by kaoD 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago
Did you read the words before those? > irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange > You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. This bit seems like SE owns the content: > You grant Stack Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any medium now known or hereinafter developed (“Content License”) in order to provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by You.
- teraflop 12y ago
  I find it hard to imagine that a court would interpret "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license", followed by a summary of the rights that are granted by said license, as anything other than a grant of rights under that specific license. It certainly doesn't say anything about transferring copyright ownership.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Yes, it's irrevocably licensed to SE under the CC-BY-SA license. Seems clear to me. This bit seems like SE owns the content: Yes, you grant those rights. That's exactly what granting them the content under the CC-BY-SA license does. You don't transfer the copyright, so they don't "own" the content.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    But the user no-longer owns the content. The user can't control what SE does with the content.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > But the user no-longer owns the content. Yes, they do. > The user can't control what SE does with the content. To the extent that is true (because they have granted a generous license) that doesn't change the fact that the user still owns the content, can use it themselves without permission from SE, and further can license it to others without permission from SE. The original owner having granted a generous but non-exclusive license to one party does not make the party benefitting the license the owner of the content or stop the original owner from being the owner of the content with all the privileges and rights that go with that.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      This is why using the word "own" and the concept of "property" in general when applied to these things is folly. The user is still the copyright holder, which is what's usually known as "owning" the content.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > This bit seems like SE owns the content Nope, they own a perpetual and irrevocable license. That's distinct from owning the content, because you still own the content, still can use it yourself, and still can issue any license you want to others to use it. Were the perpetual and irrevocable license also exclusive, this analysis would be different.

> under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.

by kaoD 12y ago

> under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.

DanBC 12y ago

Did you read the words before those? > irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange > You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. This bit seems like SE owns the content: > You grant Stack Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any medium now known or hereinafter developed (“Content License”) in order to provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by You.

teraflop 12y ago
I find it hard to imagine that a court would interpret "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license", followed by a summary of the rights that are granted by said license, as anything other than a grant of rights under that specific license. It certainly doesn't say anything about transferring copyright ownership.
icebraining 12y ago
Yes, it's irrevocably licensed to SE under the CC-BY-SA license. Seems clear to me. This bit seems like SE owns the content: Yes, you grant those rights. That's exactly what granting them the content under the CC-BY-SA license does. You don't transfer the copyright, so they don't "own" the content.
- DanBC 12y ago
  But the user no-longer owns the content. The user can't control what SE does with the content.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > But the user no-longer owns the content. Yes, they do. > The user can't control what SE does with the content. To the extent that is true (because they have granted a generous license) that doesn't change the fact that the user still owns the content, can use it themselves without permission from SE, and further can license it to others without permission from SE. The original owner having granted a generous but non-exclusive license to one party does not make the party benefitting the license the owner of the content or stop the original owner from being the owner of the content with all the privileges and rights that go with that.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    This is why using the word "own" and the concept of "property" in general when applied to these things is folly. The user is still the copyright holder, which is what's usually known as "owning" the content.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> This bit seems like SE owns the content Nope, they own a perpetual and irrevocable license. That's distinct from owning the content, because you still own the content, still can use it yourself, and still can issue any license you want to others to use it. Were the perpetual and irrevocable license also exclusive, this analysis would be different.