Who owns what we post?

  • Zeppo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    281 year ago

    Well, let’s see what the ToS says. sh.itjust.works here.

    Legal:

    TBD

    Oh.

  • @jdrch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    Each instance has complete control over what is posted on it. The only way to truly own your posts is to set up your own instance and interact only with communities on it.

    • @thepiggz@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      An interesting thought. I’m not sure this is entirely true though in many jurisdictions. It is clearly possible to post something on someone else’s server and still maintain ownership of it. Platforms like SoundCloud have you specify a license in the ui client at the time of upload. While this might seem performative, it is explicit.

      • @jdrch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        True, but if server owner pulls the plug, all the content you have there is gone. They can also unilaterally delete your posts.

        I guess my point is ownership isn’t as important as control.

        SoundCloud vapes content and entire accounts all the time.

  • @rsolva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I host my own instance and use the Creative Commons Non-Commerical license on my content. The idea is that this makes federation with other non-commercial instances no problem, but as soon as an instance mixes in ads in the feed, they (technically) can’t show my posts alongside it.

    I know Pixelfed has a license field for every post/picture so you get fine grained control, but I don’t believe this is the case for the Mastodon API yet, so I have added the license information in my bio. It would be nice to attach license information to individual posts, and to assign a default license.

    My hope is that this will make it more difficult for Meta and the like to mix in ads with my content. Time will tell if it works 😆

    • @thepiggz@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Thanks for sharing. I honestly was wondering how people were thinking about this. I was wondering why not include a license specified per post in the client UI as that seemed quite explicit. Yet, I was wondering how this might prohibit federation from being controlled at the server level.

      I had considered ads in clients and llm training. Both of which, people in need should be paid for if it is using content they generated if at all possible.

  • @SeabassDan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    To add to this, can we “disown” what we post? If it can be used against me but isn’t “mine”, it just seems like I’m always getting the short end of the stick.

    • Zeppo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      As far as any legal liability, no, unless you’re successfully anonymous (VPN, tor, etc)

        • Zeppo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Generally you own what you post, but you have given a license to the site to display and use it. In the US, social media sites are protected by something called Section 230. This allows sites to display user-generated content without being liable for legal issues related to it, as long as they do a decent job of trying to moderate clearly illegal content.

  • Rentlar
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    You own your original ideas, technically speaking. Just other people that view the board can use the ideas, copy it, or remix it into their own ideas as well.

    As an analogy, say you buy a brand new red car, and you drive it on a public street. People who take a picture of the car don’t own the car, you do of course. They, however, own the picture of your car and can sell it, copy it, post it, whatever as they please.

    • @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      It’s a little more nuanced than that. My understanding in the US, if you copyright your building, a person can’t sell the picture of your building standing alone, but can sell the picture of the landscape it’s in. In your example, If you took a picture of the car and said you designed and manufactured and are trying to sell it, that’s absolutely illegal. Litigating it and getting money from it is a different matter.

      • Rentlar
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Yep all valid points. Asserting your rights are another matter entirely, and there are many intricacies and nuances that vary from place to place but boiled down to a basic principle I hope my version was apt.

  • @kn33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    Others have expanded, but it may be useful to try to break out of the typical idea of ownership.

  • MamboGator
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 year ago

    A site’s terms of service may state that you grant certain permissions regarding the content you post, but that’s typically so that they can display it in other people’s feeds. It takes pretty explicit consent to give up or transfer your copyright to another entity. So while you’re granting permission to transmit what you post to others, it would be a really difficult case to make that you have given up your ownership of what you post. For example, if you post a photo you took to Lemmy, you’re granting your instance permission to distribute it across the fediverse, but you still own the photo.

    Disclaimer: not a lawyer but have studied copyright law academically.