New answers tagged

17

TL;DR: Technically, the SO and YouTube licenses are (probably) incompatible, so if you want to use copyrightable elements from SO in a YouTube video, you'll have to get permission from the original author. Certainly it never hurts to ask, even if you might not strictly need it. You cannot change the YouTube license… When you upload a video to YouTube, you ...


11

You cannot unilaterally change the YouTube license... YouTube wants to have this content licensed to them in a particular way, so that they can access and use the content for whatever they want, however and whenever they want. They have made the application of that license a condition of posting the content on their website. If you don't want it released to ...


2

It Depends If the person reusing the image (lets call that person R for reuser) is not complying with the terms of the Creative commons license, which include a requirement to provide attribution of the source work, then R cannot rely on the license, and the granting of the license ad the presence of a license declaration is legally irrelevant. R must have ...


1

Attribution is normally required There are several ways in which a person may be able to lawfully make and distribute copies of a work. These are: The work may not be protected by copyright at all. This is common for older works (say those published before 1900, in the US before 1925 at the moment) but rare for modern works, except for works of the US ...


1

Let's check the Stack Overflow Terms of Service: Subscriber Content You agree that any and all content, [long list of things you can post on Stack Overflow] (collectively, “Content”) that you provide to the public Network (collectively, “Subscriber Content”), is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Overflow on a worldwide, royalty-free, non-...


5

It seems crazy to me that you would have to give credits for some image especially if you're just sharing those images for fun. It seems crazy to me that anyone would think you can just use someone else's image without giving them credit. I mean, it's not really a good idea to assume that if you see something you want, you can just take it. But anyway, back ...


1

Overview I don't think this is a bug in the license, it simply means that the license may not convey all the rights a user might wish that it would. But in the nature of things, it cannot convey such rights without drastically restricting the license, and the cases where this in fact constrains a user are few. Terms of the License and Their Effects In the CC-...


1

The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license, like all the creative commons licenses, applies only when a person wants to do something that required permission under copyright law. The license grants that permission, but only if one complies with its terms. If a person wants to do something for which no permission is required under copyright law, ...


-3

Depends on jurisdiction In most common law jurisdictions moral rights can be licensed or waived. In most civil law jurisdictions, they can’t. So if the portrait was created in France, or used in France, or of a French citizen or of someone who subsequently becomes a French citizen they can enforce those rights even if they previously agreed they wouldn’t.


Top 50 recent answers are included