CosmicCleric

Nooo not the alpacas🫣

"Coming soon to a species near you!"

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

Also, this is my new signature line, so thanks.

You're welcome. I appreciate you helping out with normalizing signature lines.

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

Why is the cc-by-nc-sa license disappointing? Is your disappointment exclusive to version 4.0?

My only disappontment is with those humans (and humans who use ""humans"") who side with AI model using corporations that steal other people's content to train said models for profit, over regular everyday people.

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

Nice off-topic comment. Pretty sure by now everybody is aware of that (and other posts) on the topic of using a license.

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

ACAB

Didn't know what that stood for, I had to look it up.

I'm going to hope that's wrong, and that it's just a certain percentage in any professional caste that has bad apples.

I am willing to believe that the percentage of bad apples is larger in law enforcement, only because of the type of people who would gravitate to that type of position that would give them control over others, and how much money is spent on monitoring law enforcement personnel by the government for legal and ethics compliance, as well as mental suitability to do the job.

And no need to reply to me with every bad thing that's ever been done by police officers. I read them all, here, as well as elsewhere. I just can't subscribe to the 100% pop that ACAB stands for.

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

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)~

You should read the article yourself. There license has nothing to do with AI.

I have. The description of the usage of the license is accurate. I used to just put 'Creative Commons License' but others were asking me about the purpose of using the license. I saw someone else use that description (they also add licensing to their content/comments), and just used it for mine as well.

Creative Commons solves a particular problem for us – how to encourage republication at scale without tying up staff in negotiating deals and policing unauthorized uses. We’ve found it an invaluable aid in building our publishing platform, in reaching additional readers, and in maximizing the chance that the journalism we publish will have important impact.

You need to stop pointing at ProPublica as if you’re copying them, because you aren’t.

I am though. Its showing a justification that a post/comment can be licensed. I mean, by default all content is already licensed, I'm just licensing mine with a more restrictive license to prevent commercial usage.

The reason people are annoyed by you is because it amounts to spam.

Its not spam, it has a purpose. Its not advertising.

It could be client specific as well.

And yes, if a client can't support subscript/superscript fonts, per Lemmy's formatting instructions, then the user needs to contact the devs of their client, to fix that problem.

The irony being that originally I wasn't using a sub/superscript font, but I was getting complaints about the regular sized font being used for the license declaration, so I tried making it smaller as a compromise.

I really like it. Except your spam is everywhere you are and takes up screen real estate. This is again where ProPublica differs. On the post you keep referring to, there is not a link to the license, just the lettering at the top of a lengthy article.

Well, give me another way of licensing my content and how that license is displayed, and I'll use it. Otherwise, you can't format the Internet to look just like how you want to see it. And I'd argue the constant derailing of OPs with this same argument that never comes to a resolution time and time again does not help with how many times you see my license being displayed in my comments.

I'm sorry, but I have the right to license my content. Its not my responsiblity to format my posts/comments to your approval. And if you feel listing a license for my posts/comments is spam, feel free to block me, because I'm not going to stop doing it.

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

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)~

Nobody with a cringey sovereign citizen boomer-type signature on each of their comments gets to remark on anyone else’s peculiarities 😅

Doesn't seem to be a 'cringy sovereign citizen boomer-type signature' for ProPublica: https://lemmy.world/comment/9850401

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

What on earth is that link at the bottom of your comment? Are you…licensing it?

Its done manually, a copy and paste of the following text ...

[~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)

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