|
|
|
|
|
by dontdoxxme
327 days ago
|
|
#include <Usual IANAL comment> In the US usage like this may be considered "Fair Use", however UK copyright law is less generous in its "Fair Dealing" and associated exceptions to copyright[1]. This is a problem when standards are pushed by US tech companies but don't consider the rest of the world. [1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright |
|
What would have changed? This isn’t a problem that can be solved in a protocol. Even if a field was added for license information, it wouldn’t actually constitute a license if someone put the wrong info into the field (claiming to license content they didn’t own). It also wouldn’t have solved anything if there was an implied license for use on, e.g., social media sites as the author re-hosted it on their own domain.
I don’t think it’s fair to blame the tech companies for making a protocol. It’s up to the users to confirm their country allows the usage.