Re^3: SO and AI

[harangzsolt33]

Ok. Let me quote him. This is what he said: "I have not been notified nor paid for my small contributions."

[LanX]

You are not quoting from the post you replied to, and he didn't say that he wants to be paid.

He wants to keep control that his contributions are used in the same spirit.

Why he's dragging his dispute with SO to us is beyond me.

I suppose that SO has a disclaimer that is taking the rights of the authors...°

AFAIK, PM restricts rights only in terms of deletions, because otherwise they would render whole threads useless.

°) nope it's creative commons and mentions attribution explicitly.

https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing

If the AI is not attributing to his input he's free to sue SO

[marto]

I'm not so sure: " and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to access, use, process, copy, distribute, export, display and to commercially exploit such Subscriber Content..."

[pryrt]

The SO article you referenced reminds you (the one who posts) that you cannot revoke the permission, but the permission you grant them is under CC BY-SA 4.0, which requires the licensee (SO) to give appropriate credit (which includes name and license information).

I don't see how attribution is optional on SO's part.

[LanX]

Hmm, the attribution thing is unclear to me.

Clearly they want that the authors do proper attribution, but do they have to attribute those authors too?

Update

I'd say yes

[dsheroh]

The quote is still relevant, as it shows that stevieb has a *cough* non-standard *cough* concept of what constitutes "attribution". With a little more context, his quote was:

I have not been notified nor paid for my small contributions. Therefore I have not been attributed to.

If he said that he wants attribution and if not being paid means (to him) that he has not been attributed to, then he did say that he wants to be paid.

[choroba]

> he did say that he wants to be paid.

Or notified. That's what he said.

[LanX]

I agree about the "cough", and he hasn't replied yet to my questions.

And he's dragging his beef with SO to us, without further explanation what exactly happened.

Anyway SO has a CC licence which gives him the right to "attribution", and I am not willing to re-"cough" the definition.

PM has no such licence, PM will/can't ever sell the data. But if PM decided to expand "super-search" by AI driven "super-ask" in the same non-commercial spirit, I don't see a way to block it.

Again, a lot of speculative "coughing" at the moment.