Hacker News

points by ffsm8 2 days ago | 0 comments

Just to make sure I understand you right: the argument is that

Acteur a has a no permissive copyright

Acteur b has a non-commercial copyright on a model that infringes on a's non permissive copyright

Acteur c now can freely use it commercially, because b's copyright notice is invalid as it was never in a position to grant a permissive license

The stuff you learn on HN is truly breathtaking.

Thanks for clearing that up, that opens up a lot of avenues for future developments

[–] ang_cire 2 days ago

No, it means that Actor B has no copyright at all. Copyright requires ownership, and a thief has none. So Actor A (e.g. Activision) can make a copyright complaint against Roblox, for their 3D model that Roblox now has, that Actor B was illegally hosting. Actor B can't say crap.