Nelson's Weblog: culture / apis-for-content-sites-must-be-free
readhacker.news
  • nude@kbin.social
    5·
    2 years ago

    Is it our property though?

    Intellectually speaking yes, but legally speaking? Probably not. Chances are if its stored on their servers, it belongs to them.

    • ___hulk@kbin.social
      2·
      2 years ago

      Legally, currently, yeah. Needs to change though. I’m ok with monetizing the presentation and delivery but if you want to use collective property you should still have to make that available as part of the deal.

      • Parallax@kbin.social
        3·
        2 years ago

        Replacing “comment” with “artwork” kind of helps illustrate it. If we all made tons of artwork for Reddit, then they started gating it behind a paywall and while painters and all the behind-the-scenes painting staff earned nothing – well that’s kinda where we are today.

        • EnglishMobster@kbin.social
          3·
          2 years ago

          But what you mentioned absolutely happens, though.

          It’s €17 to go to the Louvre. Many of the paintings there are public domain, which logically says they should be free as they have no owners. Yet to see them, most people need to pay €17.

          Those are paintings locked behind a paywall. The pieces may be donated freely by an artist - just as users contribute freely on a website - but the museum still charges for admission.

          So while I’m not defending the practice - and there are many free museums; even the Louvre has ways to get in for free - it’s also not exactly a way to convince others that the practice is inherently bad.

          • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
            1·
            2 years ago

            Wouldnt the image of the painting be public domain but the physical piece be different?

            Like you could take a photo of the Mona Lisa and use it however you like, but the physical item itself is private property and access to it can be monetized?