It’s just noise. Assuming US jurisdiction where many of the AI companies are based; either AI scraping is fair use, in which case the license is meaningless, or AI scraping is not fair use, in which case they already have the copyright.
It’s the other way around, onlinepersona already has the copyright. Asserting that the copyright is non-commercial changes nothing. The default is non-commercial. The default is nobody can use it. They are applying a more permissive copyright than the default.
It’s just noise. Assuming US jurisdiction where many of the AI companies are based; either AI scraping is fair use, in which case the license is meaningless, or AI scraping is not fair use, in which case they already have the copyright.
What? How would an AI company have copyright over @[email protected]’s comment? That makes no sense at all.
It’s the other way around, onlinepersona already has the copyright. Asserting that the copyright is non-commercial changes nothing. The default is non-commercial. The default is nobody can use it. They are applying a more permissive copyright than the default.
Ah, I see what you mean now.