I asked a question on the Database Administrators Stack Exchange site a few days back:

MySQL 8 query doesn't prefer index with higher cardinality

Today, I randomly found this video on YouTube.


Someone just copied my question to his YouTube video, without adding any additional answer or comments. That's just lazy content generation.

Is that allowed? Can I or should I do anything about it? I especially don't want my name being associated with his video.

He has referenced some Meta Stack Exchange link, but that doesn't work either.

  • 22
    In the description of the linked video there is attribution for the content. Once you've made a post on SE, anyone can use it so long as they attribute it, so I'm not sure I see the problem here.
    – cigien
    Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 13:15
  • 19
    " I especially don't want my name being associated with his video." Your question on stackexchange is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, they have to state your name, otherwise they would violate the license. If you would release your question under an additional license without this requirement, maybe you could ask the video creator to remove your name. Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 13:24
  • 9
    Note that per CC BY SA 4.0, you can request that your name be removed from that video, and the author is obligated to do so "to the extent reasonably practicable."
    – Erik A
    Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 13:34
  • 1
    I am fairly sure these people are planning to monetize their videos in the future, if not already. It just seemed illogical that he'd be allowed to just copy-paste (and he doesn't even do a good job), but if it is as per the license, then I guess I can't do anything. I hope the license prevents him from monetizing at least. Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 14:28
  • 16
    @ShahidThaika The license does not prevent monetization. However, I see an interesting question. The CC BY-SA license requires that the transformation is released under the same license as the original work. I would take that to mean the video - the images (of the CC BY-SA text) and the music - would need to be CC BY-SA. However, it's not clear if he is allowed to release the music under that license. And, since YouTube doesn't allow selecting CC BY-SA as a license (it only allows for CC BY), I would expect a clear statement that the video is available CC BY-SA for others to share and remix. Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 14:34
  • 5
    Yam, learning that a video of scrolling over badly rendered text is preferred by some people over actually accessing that text itself - that’s harsh. Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 16:48
  • 10
    Looks like technically they fail to adhere to large parts of the license. "give appropriate credit" isn't really given since it's not clear which parts are from whom. The required "link to the license" is broken. "indicate if changes were made" isn't satisfied either. "not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use" is rather questionable with the "Thanks to all those great people for their contributions" line, implying people contributed to the video. Plus the "under the same license as the original" seems to be missed as well. Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 16:56
  • In light of @MisterMiyagi's comments, I'd point out the official guidance for what to do when another site is failing to follow the license terms. However, that guidance is almost 2 years old and some more recent comments in other contexts may raise questions about its accuracy. This is a good opportunity for the company to revisit this guidance, perhaps even codifying it into a Help Center article instead of a Meta question. Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 17:07
  • 1
    @ThomasOwens: I think part of the reason it's remained a Meta post and not a Help Center page is that the company can't legally require you to do anything about other sites rehosting content from SO/SE, and they're wary that having an official Help Center page saying what to do could be construed as "legal advice" or something. It's mostly just general guidance on what actions folks can choose to take themselves.
    – V2Blast
    Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 19:03
  • @V2Blast Perhaps. But a disclaimer that it's not legal advice would be nice. Regardless, I don't think that the old guidance is still valid today. Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 19:13
  • 10
    @MisterMiyagi - half of YouTube is watching someone fumble through an explanation it would be quicker & easier to read. I fear for the future of humanity. If global warming doesn't get us, stupidity in the form of 'bite-sized instant gratification' will.
    – Tetsujin
    Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 19:22
  • 4
    @Glorfindel It's unclear to me what's desired from staff here. There's already guidance as to what courses of action are available to the user in the FAQ: "A site (or scraper) is copying content from Stack Exchange. What should I do?". There's no indication that the guidance should be changed. If what's desired is an update from staff to that guidance, then it would be much better to have a question that specifically requests that. If I was a member of staff looking at this, I'd wonder what was desired, other than closing as a duplicate of that FAQ.
    – Makyen
    Commented Dec 20, 2023 at 15:20
  • 3
    "and the author is obligated to do so "to the extent reasonably practicable."" It seems worth noting that the channel in question has put up more than twenty-seven thousand videos in a bit over a year, all following an identical format. I have no idea what the clips of walking through the forest, or the thumbnails, are intended to provide. I've also seen this channel mentioned in SO chat before. Commented Dec 20, 2023 at 16:23
  • 3
    I've closed this as a duplicate because for this specific incident the answer is already elsewhere. For the reason why this post was escalated: feel free to create a separate question related specifically to whether or not the current guidelines need revising, and escalate that one instead, so we can keep the conversation focused ;)
    – JNat StaffMod
    Commented Dec 21, 2023 at 18:01
  • 1
    There must also be a lot more specific MSE question. This particular way of using Stack Exchange content on YouTube has been up before. (In general, the attribution is never correct, even if there is an attempt.) Commented Dec 23, 2023 at 0:56

1 Answer 1


Stack Exchange content is freely licensed under a Creative Commons license, so they can use your answer as long as attribution is done and the license is not changed.

Did they give attribution to your answer? If not, it’s under violation of the license.

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