I think you're missing the point. When you don't have permission over content and you present that content, it inherently comes off like you're claiming possession of the ideas and thoughts written even if you don't intend it.
Even if you link to the original user and profile, it does come off as a lazy effort to give credit to the original poster.
You've got to think about this through the lens of the content creator rather than your average reader. The content creator might think that the guy is taking his content and reposting it for their own use. The average reader doesn't care where it comes from and if they do, they will see the original creator.
original creator cited and not think much of it*
@InfiniteFlash Thank you so much for letting me know, I will clarify the situation with them.
Thanks!
@Francesco_Super You know that user who reposted your study? Well, they closed their old account and opened up a new one with the exact same study. Same issue as before.
lichess.org/study/7shLjAfWGod this guy feels like a sleazeball to me. This panosch2490 guy just reposts other peoples material, without their consent, for views. This time, they didn't even credit you. The user is a 13 year old kid from Greece. Probably he isn't getting enough attention at home.
@InfiniteFlash omg thank you so much for telling me! That guy is clearly doing it for attention and this time I will ensure that the study will be deleted or made private.
Thank you again!
Another reason to clone a study (other than sync/backup/bookmark): Computer analysis.
You can't use computer analysis on studies you don't control, sometimes even not the local analysis. Hence one of my studies being cloned broadcast; those who view the original broadcast can see it without computer constantly evaluating, while those who want to see the analysis can quickly see it by just making a clone and analysis. So both camps of chesspatzers can be served thus.
I don't really think you can get much attention with typical 0-comment 1-heart study though, especially given the lower SEO means the original would near always be seen first, but you do you *shrug*
@lement I understand your reasoning, but when I contacted the user, he never mentioned that he wanted to use the analysis board. I asked him to delete the study but what he did was to instead credit me in the description writing my username SPELLED WRONGLY on purpose (he wrote it wrong the first time as well).
Ah well. That was more of 'general reasons to clone a study' anyway to me; tbh this feels to me akin to drama over forum quote feature so I'm not the most receptive audience.
Checking your last link above, they managed to get it correct on second attempt, so there's that for assumption of incompetence.
Yeah, if you tell them to delete the study and they refuse to delete the study, then from my point of view, a moderator should step in and delete/private the study by force.
Unless the mods come out and say you are not the owner of any content in studies, I think it's fair for them to intervene. If you the mods don't intervene, that sets a bad precedent as many people would be reluctant to share anything if they knew it was going to be taken without permission. You're destroying an incentive to post and share material if you don't abide by the original content owner's wishes.
Yeah I wrote him a last message asking him to delete the study, otherwise I'm just going to report him. I don't understand why he doesn't make the study private if he wants to use it for his own use.
