• I mean, probably not. That’s such a short post, chances are courts wouldn’t find it copyrightable. And obviously attaching a license at the end of your comments is useless in practice, because no one on the internet actually properly engages with copyright law. Plus suing over copy-pasting someone’s social media post is dumb as hell and no one does that, tho I do think you could technically do it and win, because current copyright laws make zero sense if you actually stop and think about it for any amount of time.

    •  lemmyvore   ( @lemmyvore@feddit.nl ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      611 months ago

      You own the original, which you’ve written on your pc or phone. But the one that ends up on the website is a copy, on which you’ve granted the website owner a non-revokable license to do with as they please ie. a copy-right.

      • Not really. You’ve granted the owner some rights, such as the right to host your content and present it to any user on the platform, but they don’t own it. Twitter can’t start using any art hosted on their platform for their branding, because it’s no theirs.

        •  lemmyvore   ( @lemmyvore@feddit.nl ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 months ago

          They can if the license you granted them says they can. Read it. These platforms usually make you grant then extensive rights. Yes they don’t own the content but given such broad permissions it makes very little practical difference.

    •  lemmyvore   ( @lemmyvore@feddit.nl ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      And yet Microsoft made Copilot, and there are currently lots of clueless programmers out there using it to inject code with god knows what licenses into their company’s software.