4 ms·

The problem with any Non Commercial licenses is where you draw the line. Say you want to mirror these images, can you show ads on the site to cover hosting cost

The problem with any Non Commercial licenses is where you draw the line. Say you want to mirror these images, can you show ads on the site to cover hosting costs ? What about asking for donations ? What if you want to print them and distribute to schools - can you get reimbursed for the paper ink and distribution costs ? It gets murky pretty fast, often preventing people from even using such media as they fear possible issues down the line due to uncertainty. At the same time, any bootleggers won't care. Due to this NC clauses are generally not recommended and are for example not part of any OCI accepted open source licenses.

gerdesj 7y ago
"What if you want to print them and distribute to schools - can you get reimbursed for the paper ink and distribution costs" That does not fit my mental definition of "commercial", which I would define as for profit. I'm sure there are corner cases but I don't think that is one of them. Running ads whilst mirroring them - that might be hard to justify unless the revenue was only enough to support the website. Then you should wonder why mirror them at all? Now what about using them in a novel way which is ad supported? Probably OK, provided its at cost and you attribute the source.
- judge2020 7y ago
  Commercial usage includes any exchange of money, even if you're taking a huge financial loss by using the images, so this license prohibits all of that.
  - ElFitz 7y ago
    Really depends. Don't know about other countries, but French private pilotes (PPL) aren't allowed to fly commercially. Yet, they can and often do split the cost of the flight (fuel) with their passengers, and that is considered to be within the law. Even though there is an exchange of money ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - eru 7y ago
    'For profit' status isn't about actually making a profit, but about specific commercial arrangements. A money losing company doesn't suddenly become a 'non-profit'. But no clue whether the license care about this?
    - m4rtink 7y ago
      That's the main issue as I see it - it makes many uses quite murky so people will just avoid those all together rather than risk someone deciding later on it was a comercial endeavour and thus breach of the license.
  - antpls 7y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem correct. What about non-profit or general interest associations? They achieve goals with transactions of money and goods, but not for profit. Are non-profit associations considered "commercial" ?
  - gnopgnip 7y ago
    Commercial use in the context of copyright is not about money at all, but if the images are used to advertise a product or service. A newspaper could use a non commercial licensed photo to provide context to an article, even though the newspaper is made my a for profit company, they sell newspapers, and they charge for advertising. A newspaper could not use the same photo to advertise a product, even if the newspaper company is a non profit and gives the paper away for free.
epanchin 7y ago
Hopefully British museum just says yes to everyone but Getty.
gnopgnip 7y ago
Charging money for something is not a factor in whether something is a commercial use. It is only commercial use if the images are used for advertising purposes. None of your examples are murky, and none of them are commercial use.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Charging money has been a factor in commercial use in caselaw I've read, but it's not the only factor and isn't solely persuasive. Offering something for free can be commercial as it effects the market, reducing demand for commercial offerings. Showing ads alongside content is absolutely commercial use for copyright purposes.
  - gnopgnip 7y ago
    It sounds like you are talking about copyright in the context of fair use. Fair use matters for using work without permission from the rights holder. Editorial vs commercial for the purposes of a license has some difference in the legal standard. The nature of the work, affect on the market of the original etc is not a factor for editorial vs commercial. Showing ads alongside content is not commercial use. You can use an NC licensed image on a blog with ads, or in a newspaper or magazine with ads as long as the image itself is not being used to advertise something.

gerdesj 7y ago

"What if you want to print them and distribute to schools - can you get reimbursed for the paper ink and distribution costs" That does not fit my mental definition of "commercial", which I would define as for profit. I'm sure there are corner cases but I don't think that is one of them. Running ads whilst mirroring them - that might be hard to justify unless the revenue was only enough to support the website. Then you should wonder why mirror them at all? Now what about using them in a novel way which is ad supported? Probably OK, provided its at cost and you attribute the source.

judge2020 7y ago
Commercial usage includes any exchange of money, even if you're taking a huge financial loss by using the images, so this license prohibits all of that.
- ElFitz 7y ago
  Really depends. Don't know about other countries, but French private pilotes (PPL) aren't allowed to fly commercially. Yet, they can and often do split the cost of the flight (fuel) with their passengers, and that is considered to be within the law. Even though there is an exchange of money ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- eru 7y ago
  'For profit' status isn't about actually making a profit, but about specific commercial arrangements. A money losing company doesn't suddenly become a 'non-profit'. But no clue whether the license care about this?
  - m4rtink 7y ago
    That's the main issue as I see it - it makes many uses quite murky so people will just avoid those all together rather than risk someone deciding later on it was a comercial endeavour and thus breach of the license.
- antpls 7y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem correct. What about non-profit or general interest associations? They achieve goals with transactions of money and goods, but not for profit. Are non-profit associations considered "commercial" ?
- gnopgnip 7y ago
  Commercial use in the context of copyright is not about money at all, but if the images are used to advertise a product or service. A newspaper could use a non commercial licensed photo to provide context to an article, even though the newspaper is made my a for profit company, they sell newspapers, and they charge for advertising. A newspaper could not use the same photo to advertise a product, even if the newspaper company is a non profit and gives the paper away for free.

epanchin 7y ago

Hopefully British museum just says yes to everyone but Getty.

gnopgnip 7y ago

Charging money for something is not a factor in whether something is a commercial use. It is only commercial use if the images are used for advertising purposes. None of your examples are murky, and none of them are commercial use.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Charging money has been a factor in commercial use in caselaw I've read, but it's not the only factor and isn't solely persuasive. Offering something for free can be commercial as it effects the market, reducing demand for commercial offerings. Showing ads alongside content is absolutely commercial use for copyright purposes.
- gnopgnip 7y ago
  It sounds like you are talking about copyright in the context of fair use. Fair use matters for using work without permission from the rights holder. Editorial vs commercial for the purposes of a license has some difference in the legal standard. The nature of the work, affect on the market of the original etc is not a factor for editorial vs commercial. Showing ads alongside content is not commercial use. You can use an NC licensed image on a blog with ads, or in a newspaper or magazine with ads as long as the image itself is not being used to advertise something.