2

There is this horrible YouTube channel scraping Q&A from Stack Exchange without attribution to the author of either question or answers, and no links to the original post.

Stack Exchange licenses its content under CC BY-SA 4.0

Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

I think both the Attribution and ShareAlike clause are violated here.

Is this abuse or allowed?

7
  • 4
    Actually, while I find it highly problematic, I've checked out a few of their videos, and the video description contains a link back to the source, the username of the asker + answerers, and a (broken) link to the license. IANAL, but I'm not sure if that would qualify as a violation given that they include a link back to the source. That said, it may be against YouTube's policies
    – cocomac
    Commented Feb 9, 2023 at 17:49
  • Almost all scapers, incl. on YouTube, don't provide sufficient attribution (either it is missing or incomplete). The company gave up a long time ago. It is busy work on our side. Perhaps a license troll could pick it up? Commented Feb 9, 2023 at 20:42
  • @rhermans "There's this horrible youtube channel..." jeez! That's a little harsh, isn't it? Calling them "horrible" for one thing! I've got anger problems, but I've never judged anyone that badly over one little thing. Commented Feb 9, 2023 at 20:54
  • 1
    Its autogeneration is messed up. Commented Feb 9, 2023 at 21:01
  • Even the license link is broken (sample video description): https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/licensing)CC. Perhaps YouTube requires a space after the URL? It should be https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/licensing. But attribution seems to be correct. Commented Feb 9, 2023 at 21:10
  • 1
    Re "without attribution to the author of either question or answers, and no links to the original post.": **** I dispute this ****. For this video there are links to both all of the three authors and the question. Though "https://" is left out for the author links and the question link is wrapped in weird text. Is there a counterexample? Commented Feb 9, 2023 at 21:19

0