Linus pirating XKCD-comics on WAN

[betalars]

I'm kinda upset right now. Because it's one thing to republish comics without asking. But it is an entirely different thing to lie make uninformed false claims about licenses.

 

So first and foremost Creative Commons is not just one license. It's a collection and every one - including CC0 - has some amount of limitations. For instance CC-Attribution or CC-BY means you can use and adapt something for any purpose, but you have to link both the artist and the license, and you can't claim the artist supports your particular project.

 

And if XKCD used CC-BY, the usage in the Wan show would be okay.

 

But @LinusTech claim, that these comics are CC-BY is just wrong. XKCD comics use a CC-Attrribution-Non Commercial License and it's cleary visible beneath each and every comic they make.

 

So dear Linus,

• the WAN show is a commercial
• you've just used someones comic without their permission in your commercial
• go pay them > go have a discussion on copyright, apparently xkcd does not really want to be payed

But also: Make sure you're not claiming somebody uses a license, that they don't. The bare minimum of just checking on the site with the comic would have saved you here. And I would find it appropriate, if you corrected your false claim on the next WAN show.

Edit: I have been informed xkcd prooobably does not mind it's comics being used in the way Linus did ... but I still don't think he was aware that fact, so his usage remains a bit messy - hence I think it is valid to call him out on this one. Still love your hot takes, Linus, I hope you can appreciate mine.
Second Edit: I'm kinda sorry for poking this topic as I did not know the general discussion on WAN and pirating and showing external sites has already been dragged out as much. I advise forum members to not not spend more energy on this thread, than necessary.

[harryk]

I don't think he blatantly lied about the license, he just failed to read the entire line of text on the XKCD webpage. Wrong yes, but not something to be upset over.

 

As for the usage, WAN show is commercial however I think sharing the comic could fall under the super gray area of fair use. The comic was shown in commentary on another topic and was only very a minor portion of the whole show. Very different from what Randall Munroe aims to stop, which is the second hand selling of his comics.

 

Additionally the XKCD license text reads:

Quote

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. 

This means that you are free to copy and reuse any of my drawings (noncommercially) as long as you tell people where they're from.

That is, you don't need my permission to post these pictures on your website (and hotlinking with <img> is fine); just include a link back to this page. Or you can make Livejournal icons from them, but -- if possible -- put xkcd.com in the comment field. You can use them freely (with some kind of link) in not-for-profit publications, and I'm also okay with people reprinting occasional comics (with clear attribution) in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, and presentations. If you're not sure whether your use is noncommercial, feel free to email me and ask (if you're not sure, it's probably okay).

I interpret that Munroe does not mind people using his comics in limited capacity, even if it may be in a commercial setting.

[betalars]

16 minutes ago, harryk said:

 I think sharing the comic could fall under the super gray area of fair use.

The WAN Show is a commercial. There has been no critique of the comic. It's not being used for scientific purposes. Linus is just using the work to comment on something else. That is not fair use.

 

This is just piracy.

 

And since Linus is a journalist, reading a Line of Text in it's entirety to avoid misquotations should be an automatic thing for him.
 

And i am also upset, because this issue of people ignoring Creative Commons Licenses is pretty rampant and it is discouraging Artists from using free Licenses.

[Needfuldoer]

Linus had the full web page on-screen for about a minute, reads the comic, and name-drops xkcd verbally multiple times, so there's clear attribution even if you just listen to WAN Show as a podcast. He fully acknowledges that he's 'stealing' the comic, and says "oh, it's CC-BY so we're good" after multiple people in the chat (erroneously) say "It's CC-BY". Sounds like he just took their word for it instead of scrolling down the page. Both Linus and Luke also tell people to "go buy their book or something", which isn't necessarily a penance for "profiteering" a comic but it falls in line with their past comments regarding buying merch when you block ads.

 

(As an aside, you should buy the xkcd books. What If? and Thing Explainer are fantastic.)

 

I am not a copyright lawyer, but by my interpretation of the xkcd licensing footnote, the author is okay with occasional or incidental inclusion of his comics in for-profit works as long as due credit is given and whoever's using them isn't doing something egregious like selling bootleg xkcd merch and compilation books.

  

Quote

That is, you don't need my permission to post these pictures on your website (and hotlinking with <img> is fine); just include a link back to this page. Or you can make Livejournal icons from them, but -- if possible -- put xkcd.com in the comment field. You can use them freely (with some kind of link) in not-for-profit publications, and I'm also okay with people reprinting occasional comics (with clear attribution) in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, and presentations. If you're not sure whether your use is noncommercial, feel free to email me and ask (if you're not sure, it's probably okay).

Source: https://xkcd.com/license.html (Emphasis mine)

 

Books are usually intended to be for-profit, and WAN Show is most definitely a "presentation". 

 

The comic is the focus for a short part of the show, but it wasn't the focus of the entire show. I think that makes its inclusion in this episode of WAN Show a "collective work" for the purposes of the CC BY-NC 2.5 license. (Technically, Linus reading the dialogue out loud could be considered a "derivative work", but I think you could also argue that it was "technically necessary" to reproduce the work under section 3, since the comic is a picture and WAN Show is also distributed in audio-only form.)

 

Did Linus get the name of the specific Creative Commons license xkcd is published under wrong? Yes.

Did he technically violate the letter of said license? Probably.

If he brought up a non-CC comic like Heathcliff, would this have fallen under fair use? No, because he redistributed the comic verbatim without commenting on the comic itself.

 

I think the one-off use of an xkcd comic falls within the laissez-faire spirit of xkcd's licensing disclaimer, even if it just happened to work out that way. He should be more mindful in the future.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Needfuldoer
Rephrasing and clarification so I don't get misinterpreted again

[aisle9]

8 minutes ago, betalars said:

The WAN Show is a commercial.

[betalars]

36 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Yes, it advertises LTT Merch and encourages people to buy LTT Merch by spending aalmost half of it's runtime answering merch messages.

 

Not saying this is immoral in any way, just saying this makes it a commercial.

[danomicar]

I don't really think of any this matters all that much. Linus did not use the comic to sell anything. The fact that there are also ads on the wan show isn't relevant. There are ads everywhere, all the time. 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

16 minutes ago, betalars said:

Yes, it advertises LTT Merch and encourages people to buy LTT Merch by spending aalmost half of it's runtime answering merch messages.

 

Not saying this is immoral in any way, just saying this makes it a commercial.

But you’re wrong.

it is first and foremost a presentation, with commercial content in it

[aisle9]

19 minutes ago, betalars said:

Yes, it advertises LTT Merch and encourages people to buy LTT Merch by spending aalmost half of it's runtime answering merch messages.

 

Not saying this is immoral in any way, just saying this makes it a commercial.

By your definition, almost every piece of broadcast content is one gigantic ad. The typical network TV programming, at least in the US, contains approximately 9 minutes of ads vs. 21 minutes of actual content. When you slide in product placement, everything's a commercial.

 

Extending that to the tech space, let's say that LTT films a "how to build a PC" instructional video, and Corsair provides the case for it. You're going to spend the next however long of your life looking at a case sent over by Corsair that you know was sent over by Corsair. Does that make the whole video an ad, or an instructional video that uses sponsored content?

 

LTT has a recent history of being dodgy with licenses, but you're reaching here.

[Needfuldoer]

13 minutes ago, danomicar said:

I don't really think of any this matters all that much. Linus did not use the comic to sell anything. The fact that there are also ads on the wan show isn't relevant. There are ads everywhere, all the time. 

Agreed. In context, it was used as a "check out this comic that's related to this other thing we're talking about".

 

Genuine question: if someone embeds an unmodified xkcd in a blog entry and they include full attribution, are they violating the "non-commercial" aspect of the license if they also run ads on their blog?

[betalars]

9 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

Genuine question: if someone embeds an unmodified xkcd in a blog entry and they include full attribution, are they violating the "non-commercial" aspect of the license if they also run ads on their blog?

By XKCD standards probably not, by general Creatice Commons Standards most definitely yes.

[betalars]

18 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

By your definition, almost every piece of broadcast content is one gigantic ad.

Yeah, but there is an "ad block".

This means content outside that block (excluding shoutout to sponsors) is not advertisement.

 

But Merch Messages and the LTT Merch Discussions both are just part of the WAN show. It's not seperated into a WAN show and then the sponsored LTT Merch block, it is one whole WAN show. And this makes the show an advertisement - even tough it also discusses tech news and such.

[Needfuldoer]

1 hour ago, betalars said:

By XKCD standards probably not, by general Creatice Commons Standards most definitely yes.

I don't know if it's that cut-and-dry, since the Creative Commons definition of "NonCommercial" is "intent-based and intentionally flexible". It's vague by design and relies on context.

 

Quote

Creative Commons NC licenses expressly define NonCommercial as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” ^[2] The inclusion of “primarily” in the definition recognizes that no activity is completely disconnected from commercial activity; it is only the primary purpose of the reuse that needs to be considered.

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial

https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/Defining_Noncommercial_fullreport.pdf

 

Going back to my example, let's imagine two websites:

 

One exists to rip off webcomics and display them in the middle of a sea of ads, but they call it a "blog". Sure, they link back to the creators' sites, but they don't share any of the ad revenue.

 

The other is a blog that's full of original content. The author embeds a comic in their entries every once in a while, because "there's always a relevant xkcd". They always link back to the original site, as the license demands, and they run ads on the site for income. Every page has ads, whether it has a comic embedded or not.

 

The first site is a very obvious violation, because the comics are ostensibly the main focus (the reason viewers are there, looking at the ads). The second site's primary focus is its original content, its viewers aren't going there just to read the comics they reuse. They're not specifically using the comics to generate traffic and this ad revenue. Their use case is "less commercial" (as some of the CC literature likes to say), even though both are technically violating the licenses by the same broad definition (including BY-NA comics on a site with ads).

I think the Creative Commons licenses make the creator's wishes known, so whoever intends to reuse the works can make an informed decision as to whether they're allowed to and how credit should be given. They also give creators a leg to stand on if they disapprove of the way their work is reused, so they have some recourse to either have the reuse ceased or to get compensated for their work. Really, it comes down to whether the creator feels their work is being exploited.

 

Including an xkcd on WAN Show the way they did more closely resembles the second imaginary site. I don't think they did anything morally wrong in this instance, but they should be mindful to respect the content creators' intent when they include non-original content like this.

 

(Again, I am not a lawyer. I'm just a dumb-dumb with no skin in the game who has access to Google.)

[Alcarin]

The XKCD content has a non-commercial license for use. The WAN show is monetized, hosted and run by a corporation, and it advertises many things whether they intend for it or not. Using it once in a one-off instance might be okay but it doesn't set a good precendent. 

 

The info in the Creative Commons wiki posted above is from a source that's over 12 years old now, so it's outdated in the era of Youtubers and streamers making boatloads of cash and forming their own corporations (ie LMG).

[Needfuldoer]

37 minutes ago, Alcarin said:

The info in the Creative Commons wiki posted above is from a source that's over 12 years old now, so it's outdated in the era of Youtubers and streamers making boatloads of cash and forming their own corporations (ie LMG).

It's old, but it's what Creative Commons links to from their main page. If it's obsolete, they should update it.

 

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#does-my-use-violate-the-noncommercial-clause-of-the-licenses

[betalars]

Edit: (did not see comment by @Alcarin before posting this, sorry):

@Needfuldoer Yeah but in what stretch of imagination is WAN show not primarily commercial?

[Alcarin]

5 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

It's old, but it's what Creative Commons links to from their main page. If it's obsolete, it should be updated.

 

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#does-my-use-violate-the-noncommercial-clause-of-the-licenses

Yea the first sentence alone in that FAQ section makes this particular use technically a violation. Yes the content probably wasn't used with the objective to sell something or elicit donations or whatever. But it was still used on a monetized program by a corporation that makes probably the majority of their money off of that very platform.

 

It is a very murky situation indeed.

[Needfuldoer]

1 hour ago, betalars said:

Yeah but in what stretch of imagination is WAN show not primarily commercial?

 

1 hour ago, Alcarin said:

Yea the first sentence alone in that FAQ section makes this particular use technically a violation. Yes the content probably wasn't used with the objective to sell something or elicit donations or whatever. But it was still used on a monetized program by a corporation that makes probably the majority of their money off of that very platform.

 

As I read that page, a "use" refers to a given instance of a BY-NC work in a new work, not the resulting new work as a whole.

 

Quote

Does my use violate the NonCommercial clause of the licenses?

CC’s NonCommercial (NC) licenses prohibit uses that are “primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” This is intended to capture the intention of the NC-using community without placing detailed restrictions that are either too broad or too narrow. Please note that CC’s definition does not turn on the type of user: if you are a nonprofit or charitable organization, your use of an NC-licensed work could still run afoul of the NC restriction, and if you are a for-profit entity, your use of an NC-licensed work does not necessarily mean you have violated the term. Whether a use is commercial will depend on the specifics of the situation and the intentions of the user.

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#does-my-use-violate-the-noncommercial-clause-of-the-licenses

 

WAN Show as a whole is primarily commercial but this use of the comic was not because they didn't 'primarily' set out to profit off its inclusion. CC's (relatively old) guidelines wiki says, "it is only the primary purpose of the reuse that needs to be considered".

 

1 hour ago, Alcarin said:

It is a very murky situation indeed.

So very true.

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by Needfuldoer
Removed redundant sentences that said the same thing multiple times

[WolframaticAlpha]

2 hours ago, betalars said:

Yes, it advertises LTT Merch and encourages people to buy LTT Merch by spending aalmost half of it's runtime answering merch messages.

 

Not saying this is immoral in any way, just saying this makes it a commercial.

by your logic, if any show has product placements or a vid has sponsor spots, it is a commercial.

[Middcore]

Nobody made or lost any money by Linus showing an XKCD comic. The end. 

[IkeaGnome]

5 minutes ago, Caroline said:

ohhh! how terrible! he's a pirate because he used OCCT for free and didn't show the credits for a comic that was 2 seconds on screen! what a nightmare! The LTT reddit page is a cesspool of "piracy bad" and shitposts.

inb4 we have to credit brands for product pictures online or be a pirate.

Spoiler

There's a world that people are pushing towards where I just pirated this picture from EVGA and Nvidia.

 

[betalars]

47 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

by your logic, if any show has product placements or a vid has sponsor spots, it is a commercial.

Most LMG videos would still be a commercial project.

But given the clear artistic separation between sponsor spot and "editorial content" (sorry if that is not the correct word to use) as well as the fact, that sponsor spots in regular LMG content only make up a fraction of the video, I'd argue it's something else compared to WAN show.

[Avocado Diaboli]

38 minutes ago, Caroline said:

Seriously though, why? what's the reasoning -if there's any- behind becoming a copyright knight? defending companies that don't even care you exist in exchange for some dopamine? Or is it a personal vendetta against Linus/LMG?

Well Linus didn't do himself any favors when he called blocking ads "literally piracy" and was being obstinate about it, so I guess it's open season for some to point out his copyright violations. You know, to show him what effects his actions are having. The same way he graciously did when he pointed out the effects of blocking ads to people who clearly didn't know.

 

32 minutes ago, Middcore said:

Nobody made or lost any money by Linus showing an XKCD comic. The end. 

Linus made money by showing it on his ad-sponsored video.

[Middcore]

Just now, Avocado Diaboli said:

Linus made money by showing it on his ad-sponsored video.

 

No, he didn't, and you know it. 

[Avocado Diaboli]

2 minutes ago, Middcore said:

No, he didn't, and you know it. 

Sure he did. Are you trying to imply any second he doesn't actively talk about his sponsors is one where he doesn't make money off of?