4 ms·

Why would anyone think that "non-commercial" would only prevent earning money on the licensed material? if the material plays any role in a commercial endeavour

by macmac 17y ago

Why would anyone think that "non-commercial" would only prevent earning money on the licensed material? if the material plays any role in a commercial endeavour obviously you cannot use it if it is CC "non-commercial". That is why the license reads: "You may not use this work for commercial purposes." not "You may not earn money of this work."

ugh 17y ago
Seems obvious to me. Non-commercial pretty much only allows private usage or usage by non-profits. That's how I read it all the time.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
gkob 17y ago
but what's a commercial endeavour? you can't use the term commercial to define non-commercial.
tibbon 17y ago
I've traditionally licensed my stuff as NC-BY-SA (photos) under this logic: I want attribution for the work. Seems to be a fair ask. I want people to keep sharing the work as it changes. The last thing I want is for my photo to be on the front of Newsweek, or worse- used in a commercial campaign that I don't want, but without getting a few dollars out of it. I know this isn't a startup- but for my photos, I don't simply believe that a major commercial/newspaper/etc using my photo will give me enough publicity to make money from other photography efforts. I've had photos used in the NYT and other large publications- it doesn't automatically happen. That being said, when I am contacted about commercial use I am HIGHLY permissive and allow 98% of businesses to use my photos for free.
- indiejade 17y ago
  when I am contacted about commercial use I am HIGHLY permissive and allow 98% of businesses to use my photos for free. Mind if I ask why? If you allow business to use your photos "for free" isn't that essentially the same thing as giving away a valuable, duplicable product that a company can technically classify as "inventory" for free? Copyright issues are tough, but the more the Digital Age moves us toward the realm where artistic and creative types should be and actually _get_ compensated for their work, the more the intangible creative value is worth.
mbrubeck 17y ago
This isn't as "obvious" as you think. First, you quoted the human-readable summary of the license, not the license itself. The CC-BY-NC 3.0 license actually says, "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." Note the word primarily - so if the use is only incidentally or secondarily commercial in nature, it may still be compatible with the "non-commercial" clauses. There are more details in the legalese of the license, but nevertheless this is a very vague and somewhat controversial license - so much that the Creative Commons organization did a survey of community members and published a lengthy report on the different ways of interpreting it: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127 One question is: Do commercial businesses ever engage in non-commercial activities? Is Hacker News a non-commercial community site that happens to be operated by Y Combinator, or is it "primarily directed toward commercial advantage" merely by virtue of its affiliation?
- macmac 17y ago
  I find the license even clearer than the summary I quoted. I am missing a actual usage scenario where one could be uncertain if the use was inside or outside the license.
  - mbrubeck 17y ago
    Suppose I'm a tenured professor and I publish a blog with educational posts about computer science. I write blog entries during my working hours. The blog isn't a requirement of my job but it may help raise my academic profile. Am I free to use your CC-BY-SA 3.0 photo to illustrate my blog post? What if, instead of a professor, I am a freelance programmer. There are no ads or other exchange of money directly related to the blog, but sometimes potential clients find me through my blog. But the blog is also a way for me to converse with a group of regular readers whom I already know. Is this blog primarily directed toward commercial advantage? In either of the above scenarious, suppose the blog has ads but that I don't turn a profit on it (i.e. the ads defray but do not cover the hosting cost). How about now? Or what if the revenue from the ads is more than the hosting cost, but much less than I could make through my professional activities. If the amount of money is tiny relative to the time I spend on the blog, could I argue that the blog is not primarily directed toward commercial advantage? You may find each of these cases perfectly clear and obvious, but wherever you draw an "obvious" line, the above study probably shows that many Creative Commons members will think it should be somewhere else. Even the organization that drafted the license admits that it doesn't provide very explicit guidance for common cases like web sites that include (but don't rely on) advertising, or sites that do not involve exchange of money but may provide less-tangible commercial advantages for their owners.

by macmac 17y ago

ugh 17y ago

Seems obvious to me. Non-commercial pretty much only allows private usage or usage by non-profits. That's how I read it all the time.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

gkob 17y ago

but what's a commercial endeavour? you can't use the term commercial to define non-commercial.

tibbon 17y ago

I've traditionally licensed my stuff as NC-BY-SA (photos) under this logic: I want attribution for the work. Seems to be a fair ask. I want people to keep sharing the work as it changes. The last thing I want is for my photo to be on the front of Newsweek, or worse- used in a commercial campaign that I don't want, but without getting a few dollars out of it. I know this isn't a startup- but for my photos, I don't simply believe that a major commercial/newspaper/etc using my photo will give me enough publicity to make money from other photography efforts. I've had photos used in the NYT and other large publications- it doesn't automatically happen. That being said, when I am contacted about commercial use I am HIGHLY permissive and allow 98% of businesses to use my photos for free.

indiejade 17y ago
when I am contacted about commercial use I am HIGHLY permissive and allow 98% of businesses to use my photos for free. Mind if I ask why? If you allow business to use your photos "for free" isn't that essentially the same thing as giving away a valuable, duplicable product that a company can technically classify as "inventory" for free? Copyright issues are tough, but the more the Digital Age moves us toward the realm where artistic and creative types should be and actually _get_ compensated for their work, the more the intangible creative value is worth.

mbrubeck 17y ago

This isn't as "obvious" as you think. First, you quoted the human-readable summary of the license, not the license itself. The CC-BY-NC 3.0 license actually says, "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." Note the word primarily - so if the use is only incidentally or secondarily commercial in nature, it may still be compatible with the "non-commercial" clauses. There are more details in the legalese of the license, but nevertheless this is a very vague and somewhat controversial license - so much that the Creative Commons organization did a survey of community members and published a lengthy report on the different ways of interpreting it: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127 One question is: Do commercial businesses ever engage in non-commercial activities? Is Hacker News a non-commercial community site that happens to be operated by Y Combinator, or is it "primarily directed toward commercial advantage" merely by virtue of its affiliation?

macmac 17y ago
I find the license even clearer than the summary I quoted. I am missing a actual usage scenario where one could be uncertain if the use was inside or outside the license.
- mbrubeck 17y ago
  Suppose I'm a tenured professor and I publish a blog with educational posts about computer science. I write blog entries during my working hours. The blog isn't a requirement of my job but it may help raise my academic profile. Am I free to use your CC-BY-SA 3.0 photo to illustrate my blog post? What if, instead of a professor, I am a freelance programmer. There are no ads or other exchange of money directly related to the blog, but sometimes potential clients find me through my blog. But the blog is also a way for me to converse with a group of regular readers whom I already know. Is this blog primarily directed toward commercial advantage? In either of the above scenarious, suppose the blog has ads but that I don't turn a profit on it (i.e. the ads defray but do not cover the hosting cost). How about now? Or what if the revenue from the ads is more than the hosting cost, but much less than I could make through my professional activities. If the amount of money is tiny relative to the time I spend on the blog, could I argue that the blog is not primarily directed toward commercial advantage? You may find each of these cases perfectly clear and obvious, but wherever you draw an "obvious" line, the above study probably shows that many Creative Commons members will think it should be somewhere else. Even the organization that drafted the license admits that it doesn't provide very explicit guidance for common cases like web sites that include (but don't rely on) advertising, or sites that do not involve exchange of money but may provide less-tangible commercial advantages for their owners.