I would. It isn't at all hidden. It is presented front-and-center in the terms page, right after the introductory paragraphs.
This isn't like IMDB when content which had been given over to public domain, hosted on shared/donated resources for the first half of the 90s, suddenly had IMDB Inc.'s copyright notices all over it.
> contributors either haven't read the licence agreement or have read it but haven't properly understand what it actually means?
That might be a valid arguement for complex clauses hidden deep within pages of legalise, especially in the past when we were all a lot more naive about IP issues, but to miss this (or just not bother checking) in today's world you need to be wilfully ignorant rather than just unaware.
> Kind of like one way sharing? You give, they take?
Sharing with the public via CC0, with them as a middleman. They aren't claiming ownership of anything, they aren't restricting other distribution of what the user has submitted, they aren't hoovering up stuff published elsewhere to power/train a commercial AI.
There are a few things I think might be valid to take issue with¹², the use of CC0 for provided content that you can just not provide if you disagree is not one of them IMO.
--
[1] “We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to modify or replace these Terms at any time.” is rather far reaching, though pretty standard and can't affect the license of the user provided content.
[2] “By accessing … the Service you agree to be bound by these Terms.” - just reading a page, or even just loading a page, should not be considered an act of consent in that manner IMO, and is likely not legally enforceable in most places.
I would. It isn't at all hidden. It is presented front-and-center in the terms page, right after the introductory paragraphs.
This isn't like IMDB when content which had been given over to public domain, hosted on shared/donated resources for the first half of the 90s, suddenly had IMDB Inc.'s copyright notices all over it.
> contributors either haven't read the licence agreement or have read it but haven't properly understand what it actually means?
That might be a valid arguement for complex clauses hidden deep within pages of legalise, especially in the past when we were all a lot more naive about IP issues, but to miss this (or just not bother checking) in today's world you need to be wilfully ignorant rather than just unaware.
> Kind of like one way sharing? You give, they take?
Sharing with the public via CC0, with them as a middleman. They aren't claiming ownership of anything, they aren't restricting other distribution of what the user has submitted, they aren't hoovering up stuff published elsewhere to power/train a commercial AI.
There are a few things I think might be valid to take issue with¹², the use of CC0 for provided content that you can just not provide if you disagree is not one of them IMO.
--
[1] “We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to modify or replace these Terms at any time.” is rather far reaching, though pretty standard and can't affect the license of the user provided content.
[2] “By accessing … the Service you agree to be bound by these Terms.” - just reading a page, or even just loading a page, should not be considered an act of consent in that manner IMO, and is likely not legally enforceable in most places.