Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

TV Tropes Relicensed its Content - Without Permit

posted by Woods on Thursday May 15 2014, @11:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the content-of-this-article-is-SFW dept.

LowID writes:

In the beginning, pop culture wiki TV Tropes licensed its content with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license for free content.

When Google pulled out its AdSense revenue because of... let's call it NSFW fan fiction, TV Tropes changed its guidelines to forbid tropes about mature content. In response to this move, two forks were eventually created. The admins disliked this move so much that they changed its license notice to the Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike version, despite their site not having requested copyright rights from their users. Only later they added a clause to their Terms of use page requiring all contributors to grant the site irrevocable, exclusive ownership of their edits.

I suppose the morale of the story is, if you contributed to TV Tropes before summer 2012, you should know they're distributing your content under a license that you didn't give them permission to use.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
TV Tropes Relicensed its Content - Without Permit | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 40 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by joshuajon on Friday May 16 2014, @02:02PM

    by joshuajon (807) on Friday May 16 2014, @02:02PM (#44191)

    Wait, so the license change was just to add the non-commercial aspects? Seems like a legit move in my opinion. I'd be curious to know whether running ads on a site violates this clause though.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @02:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @02:42PM (#44208)

    Since the content was provided to them under a licence which (a) didn't have the no-commercial clause, and (b) didn't allow to add it, no, it's not legit.