• Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    ProPublica didn’t post that to Lemmy, they publish to their own site. Someone else (PirateJesus) copy-pasted their article and posted it here.

    That article is licensed by ProPublica though, with that Creative Commons license. Its just being noted in the Lemmy post, per these instructions.

    Per ProPublica, including a Creative Commons license in your post/comments is a valid thing to do, when sharing their articles. You can’t hand-wave that away, citing the license in which an article is being shared as part of the post/comment is a valid thing to do.

    Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

    • Yggnar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the person who effectively “owns” the content you produce on Lemmy and has the right to license it be the person who runs the instance your account is signed up to? In the same way that Reddit “owns” all user generated content on it’s service because it owns/runs the service. I’m not really part of this whole argument, it’s just a detail I’m curious about.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the person who effectively “owns” the content you produce on Lemmy and has the right to license it be the person who runs the instance your account is signed up to?

        No. The TOS does not claim ownership of the content being posted.

        Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)