alt Hacker NewsJust 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
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.