20

Recently I stumbled on the site of an IT company that replicated the entire article "Do large language models know what they are talking about?" with attribution.

For basic content on the network this should be enough to meet the requirements of the Creative Commons license. Yet I seriously doubt Stack Exchange is also distributing its articles under the same license.

So I am asking you. Is this a case of plagiarism that should be reported or just a very weird but allowed use of the license?

7
  • 7
    I wonder if this is status review for "We need to check with legal" or "We need to sic the lawyers on them" :D Jul 6, 2023 at 9:47
  • 1
    As the copyright holder of that content, only the company can take steps. And they should know what license their content is under. However, since they do not subscribe to this service, they are not bound to contributing their content on the blog under CC. They can go after this IT company if they want to. Jul 6, 2023 at 10:57
  • 1
    It looks like most of their articles are copied from external sources such as techcrunch.
    – bobeyt6
    Jul 6, 2023 at 15:13
  • 3
    @bobeyt6isstricken didn't really check. To be fully honest, I found that site while searching for a source for the comic that was included in the blog article (there is a separate question for that ) as I initially had some doubts regarding the presented source in the accepted answer. Instead, I stumbled on that page.
    – SPArcheon
    Jul 6, 2023 at 15:16
  • 1
    It would be ironic if SE copied the comic without proper attribution(at least the IT company provided a link back to the original blog post).
    – bobeyt6
    Jul 6, 2023 at 15:18
  • @bobeyt6isstricken that was probably what said question was trying to assess.
    – SPArcheon
    Jul 6, 2023 at 15:20
  • Considering the author is user by the name of RSS fetcher, I presume it's just a bot that has subscribed to multiple RSS feeds and is pulling data from the same. This does make me wonder, if the blogs are RSS subscribable, then wouldn't the RSS licenses also be applicable? Jul 7, 2023 at 1:24

2 Answers 2

6

I spoke to our legal team, who shared the following with me:

You’re right that content on our blog isn’t licensed under a CC license. We own it, and for each case where we see there is potential misuse of our commercially licensed content, we need to work closely with our legal team to develop attorney-client privileged advice and a plan of action, shareable only with few people in the company, to protect the content we own. We appreciate you raising this case of potential copyright misuse.

In terms of reporting, there's currently no mechanism for users to report this type of issue to us. (The "Stack Exchange content is being reproduced without attribution" option in the Contact form is for reporting when user-generated content is being copied from our sites by a proxy, and is not meant for users to report potential misuses of Stack-owned content.)

16

A quick look around the page says "© 2023 All Rights Reserved." I cannot find any mentions of the blog being CC licenced, so it looks like a copyright violation to me, though I'm unsure if any action will be taken

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .