The fact that Scratch projects have been licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 has been a fundamental part of Scratch, and is a license that many Scratch users are familiar with. Instead of just explaining in an announcements post, Scratch should change the pop-up model to show the new way Scratch projects are licensed and how this differs from CC BY-SA 2.0.



This could be expanded to other aspects of the new TOS, like data collection, to help children understand the way their data online is used transparently, and how these rights are changing for them.

Here’s a good explanation on why educating children on what they are agreeing to and how it’s changing is important:

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

I haven't really used Scratch in a while, but frankly I'm extremely disappointed in the Scratch Team for going forward with this in the way they have. This is an egregious lack of transparency and an insult to all their users.

I'm not going to comment on the idea of training AI on Scratch, just because “AI” is such a vague term. It could mean anything from generative models to recommendation systems to improved moderation, etc. So I'm not going to cast judgement when I don't know for sure what I'm judging. For all I know, it could be something completely necessary, and AI models aren't bad things in and of themselves.

But literally every tech company is forcing its users to allow AI to be shoved down their throats. If Scratch absolutely needs to become ✨Powered By AI™✨ like every other website under the sun, then at the very least, as an educational platform, they have an opportunity and a responsibility to teach their predominantly-younger userbase about internet literacy and informed consent. They could (and should!) point out what's being changed, how they are planning to use AI, how it affects users, what they can do about it, and maybe even how users can read/understand ToS changes for themselves.

A creative site for children choosing to hide their AI clauses behind a mountain of legalese is morally abhorrent.

Support!

I'm currently really confused about the license of Scratch projects, and clarification like this would be nice.

support ! it took me a while to fully understand this part of the TOS so this would be a good addition for people like me :'3

I would rather scrap this weird corporate license altogether. It makes me feel sick.

If I told you “hey, I'm going to steal your pancakes. Here's what's gonna happen: you will no longer have access to pancakes but any pancakes you make immediately go to me so I can sell them.”
It's just not good either way

Projects shared prior to this would still be under the CC-BY-SA 2.0, right?

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Projects shared prior to this would still be under the CC-BY-SA 2.0, right?

Presumably not, since you consent to retroactively licensing all user content to this new AI slop license

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Projects shared prior to this would still be under the CC-BY-SA 2.0, right?

Presumably not, since you consent to retroactively licensing all user content to this new AI slop license

No, based on the terms of CC-BY-SA 2.0, I believe that such projects would still be under this license. In addition, the projects would also be under this new license.

Za-Chary wrote:

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Projects shared prior to this would still be under the CC-BY-SA 2.0, right?

Presumably not, since you consent to retroactively licensing all user content to this new AI slop license

No, based on the terms of CC-BY-SA 2.0, I believe that such projects would still be under this license. In addition, the projects would also be under this new license.

Hmm… Yes, the terms of the license are that you need credit. But here's my logic:

You decide what to license something. You can change the license any time, and if you shared s previous version in a different license that specific copy will forever remain that specific license. However, when you relicense something, any future versions and the current versions will be your new license. If no one had downloaded it before hand, there will be no trace left of the old license. You might think that since it's your project, you can set whatever license you want. But consenting to the TOS means that you are consenting Scratch to relicense all User Content on your behalf to the new AI slop license .

Wait. After some researching I've found you can't remove the old license since the terms of the license stay stuck forever. So this means that what scratch is doing is illegal by violating it and selling your data, and training AI off it without credit which the old license requires unless they explicitly don't train in old projects.

Well, there's not much we can do either way. Look at meta, who pirated over 80 terabytes of books from Library Genesis. All they got was a slap on the wrist.

Za-Chary wrote:

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Projects shared prior to this would still be under the CC-BY-SA 2.0, right?

Presumably not, since you consent to retroactively licensing all user content to this new AI slop license

No, based on the terms of CC-BY-SA 2.0, I believe that such projects would still be under this license. In addition, the projects would also be under this new license.

based on Za-chary, There is already a different suggestion based on that, that's why it is there.
Anyways while I say it's a good idea, like scratchcode1_2_3 said I rather scrap the new licensing all together. People will be discouraged, yes I understand why scratch didn't put this. Transparent or not people are going to just stop making projects in this site and move on to something like offline scratch instead. I rather they take it back.

Za-Chary wrote:

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Projects shared prior to this would still be under the CC-BY-SA 2.0, right?

Presumably not, since you consent to retroactively licensing all user content to this new AI slop license

No, based on the terms of CC-BY-SA 2.0, I believe that such projects would still be under this license. In addition, the projects would also be under this new license.

CC-BY-SA 2.0 Legal Code wrote:

source
7. Termination

a. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.

b. Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.

Based on these excerpts, I imagine you'd be correct. It would seem that the ST wouldn't be able to retroactively revoke the CC-BY-SA 2.0 license, but they would be able to add onto it (from my understanding). Is it that the new licensing terms are using CC-BY-SA in conjunction with this new license that adds certain rights for Scratch?

Actually, we might have some hope. At least for opting out.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R1689&hl=en-US

Under Article 53(1)© of the EU AI Act, It says that providers of AI models must:
“…identify and comply with… a reservation of rights expressed pursuant to Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790.”
As in, add a clear opt out for AI training from user data, and if this is not added, Scratch will be in violation of it.

They also added a new forced arbitration clause, which unlike the old ToU which you used to be able to sue them in a class section lawsuit, under Directive 93/13/EEC, forced arbitration is not legally binding,, and therefore allows consumers to take legal action.


While both of these are EU only laws, they should apply to Scratch since Scratch has historically applied things to comply with EU law since Scratch can be used in the EU.

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

While both of these are EU only laws, they should apply to Scratch since Scratch has historically applied things to comply with EU law since Scratch can be used in the EU.

This is sort of covered in the Terms of Service already:

New Terms of Service wrote:

19.2. Governing Law. These Terms are governed by the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to conflict of law principles. You and the Scratch Team submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts and federal courts located within New Castle County, Delaware, for resolution of any lawsuit or court proceeding permitted under these Terms. We operate the Service from our offices in Massachusetts, and we make no representation that materials included in the Service are appropriate or available for use in other locations.

Based on what this says and on what you're saying, the Scratch Foundation doesn't have to ensure that Scratch is legal to use in the EU. So if the EU determines that Scratch is violating AI usage, then the EU can simply ban Scratch, and Scratch can continue to run in other countries.

I don't know how this applies to GDPR, though. Maybe that is an exception somehow?

Za-Chary wrote:

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

While both of these are EU only laws, they should apply to Scratch since Scratch has historically applied things to comply with EU law since Scratch can be used in the EU.

This is sort of covered in the Terms of Service already:

New Terms of Service wrote:

19.2. Governing Law. These Terms are governed by the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to conflict of law principles. You and the Scratch Team submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts and federal courts located within New Castle County, Delaware, for resolution of any lawsuit or court proceeding permitted under these Terms. We operate the Service from our offices in Massachusetts, and we make no representation that materials included in the Service are appropriate or available for use in other locations.

Based on what this says and on what you're saying, the Scratch Foundation doesn't have to ensure that Scratch is legal to use in the EU. So if the EU determines that Scratch is violating AI usage, then the EU can simply ban Scratch, and Scratch can continue to run in other countries.

I don't know how this applies to GDPR, though. Maybe that is an exception somehow?

Yes, but this would mean Scratch can't be used in the ENTIRE EU. I think scratch wouldn't want that unless they want to lose like half their users.

Za-Chary wrote:

This is sort of covered in the Terms of Service already:

New Terms of Service wrote:

19.2. Governing Law. These Terms are governed by the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to conflict of law principles. You and the Scratch Team submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts and federal courts located within New Castle County, Delaware, for resolution of any lawsuit or court proceeding permitted under these Terms. We operate the Service from our offices in Massachusetts, and we make no representation that materials included in the Service are appropriate or available for use in other locations.

Based on what this says and on what you're saying, the Scratch Foundation doesn't have to ensure that Scratch is legal to use in the EU. So if the EU determines that Scratch is violating AI usage, then the EU can simply ban Scratch, and Scratch can continue to run in other countries.

I don't know how this applies to GDPR, though. Maybe that is an exception somehow?

I think that this is to cover their bases and give them a legal footing for not having to comply with every country-based regulations, but I think scratchcosde1_2_3 is correct in that they may not want to have a good portion of the userbase be unable to access Scratch in their country.

new plan. for all those people who are mad about all this garbage, here's a step by step guide to get around it.

spread the word. find your alts.

TheIlluminatiExposer wrote:

new plan. for all those people who are mad about all this garbage, here's a step by step guide to get around it.

spread the word. find your alts.

Advertise in your signature.

Yes please. This is a legal matter, the ST needs to be clear on this.

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

I would rather scrap this weird corporate license altogether. It makes me feel sick.

If I told you “hey, I'm going to steal your pancakes. Here's what's gonna happen: you will no longer have access to pancakes but any pancakes you make immediately go to me so I can sell them.”
It's just not good either way

I agree, but this suggestion is more of a compromise, at the bare minimum the ST should be transparent (as it historically has been) to children when it comes to how their project is licensed. Like how Creative Commons on their website show each of their licenses clearly.

Does this mean that we can't remix old projects that are still CC-BY-SA only, as we can't license the remix with the new license?

leahcimto wrote:

The fact that Scratch projects have been licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 has been a fundamental part of Scratch, and is a license that many Scratch users are familiar with. Instead of just explaining in an announcements post, Scratch should change the pop-up model to show the new way Scratch project's are licensed and how this differs from CC BY-SA 2.0.



This could be expanded to other aspects of the new TOS, like data collection, to help children understand the way their data online is used transparently.

Scratch never showed me that messsage…