4 ms·

Free for non-commercial use sounds good until you think about it. Basically everything is commercial in some way. An artist? Commercial if they ever want to se

by D13Fd 5y ago

Free for non-commercial use sounds good until you think about it. Basically everything is commercial in some way. An artist? Commercial if they ever want to sell their art. A writer? Same. A hobbyist with a blog? Probably commercial, if they are using the blog to promote themselves. A friendly neighborhood IT guy? Probably commercial given that they are competing with others and that they probably get some form of compensation (e.g. free beer) from time to time. It’s really hard to think of safely non-commercial uses.

gpm 5y ago
> It’s really hard to think of safely non-commercial uses. Schools, politicians, militaries (and a lot of other parts of the government) people doing stuff just for fun (and not for beer). It's easy to think of them, I'm just not sure they're the use cases you actually want to be free. Did you really intend to subsidize the <country you don't like here>'s military and <politician you don't like here>'s campaign but not your local maker space that charges a bit of money for entrance to support itself?
- D13Fd 5y ago
  I’m not sure if I’d categorize all military, political, and government uses of copyrighted media as “non-commercial.” For example, if they use your photo or video in an advertisement that they pay to have played on TV, is that still non-commercial? That’s sounds pretty commercial to me.
  - gpm 5y ago
    I'm no lawyer, there might be some exceptions, but I don't believe TV-commercials would be one. Compare to the Fedex case linked elsewhere in this thread: https://creativecommons.org/2017/02/24/update-great-minds-v-fedex-office-litigation-involving-nc-sa/ https://creativecommons.org/2017/02/24/update-great-minds-v-... To quote from the ruling (internal quotations, which all of this is, and citations omitted) > A licensee to make and use is not (in the absence of specific language in his license) limited to making with his own hands, in his own shop, or by his own employes. He may employ, procure, or contract with as many persons as he chooses to supply him with that which he may lawfully use, provided such conduct does not change his relation to the licensor.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0HBOY8b2doEdmpkMU4ya2dKM28/view?resourcekey=0-wkQnv81hkT8WRZURR7z6tw https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0HBOY8b2doEdmpkMU4ya2dKM28... Displaying the picture to recruit new soldiers seems to me to be a non-commercial use, assuming you accept that (which I admit I am asserting without support) paying to have it be displayed on TV doesn't make it commercial.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      So you have the ludicrous situation where the US Army or Harvard University can probably use your photo on their website (with attribution) whereas the hobbyist blogger with some affiliate links arguably can't.
dspillett 5y ago
> A hobbyist with a blog? Probably commercial, if they are using the blog to promote themselves. Or if the blog carries advertising. In that case they are making something off carrying the adverts (or why else would they?) and the content is becoming part of the advertisers' (and the people in the middle's) business plan. For some content there is another distinction too: are they using the content or referring to it? Copying a large chunk of an article into their blog (or book or whatever) and quoting part of it (with attribution) are quite different things (the latter usually covered by "fair use" concepts).

by D13Fd 5y ago

gpm 5y ago

> It’s really hard to think of safely non-commercial uses. Schools, politicians, militaries (and a lot of other parts of the government) people doing stuff just for fun (and not for beer). It's easy to think of them, I'm just not sure they're the use cases you actually want to be free. Did you really intend to subsidize the <country you don't like here>'s military and <politician you don't like here>'s campaign but not your local maker space that charges a bit of money for entrance to support itself?

D13Fd 5y ago
I’m not sure if I’d categorize all military, political, and government uses of copyrighted media as “non-commercial.” For example, if they use your photo or video in an advertisement that they pay to have played on TV, is that still non-commercial? That’s sounds pretty commercial to me.
- gpm 5y ago
  I'm no lawyer, there might be some exceptions, but I don't believe TV-commercials would be one. Compare to the Fedex case linked elsewhere in this thread: https://creativecommons.org/2017/02/24/update-great-minds-v-fedex-office-litigation-involving-nc-sa/ https://creativecommons.org/2017/02/24/update-great-minds-v-... To quote from the ruling (internal quotations, which all of this is, and citations omitted) > A licensee to make and use is not (in the absence of specific language in his license) limited to making with his own hands, in his own shop, or by his own employes. He may employ, procure, or contract with as many persons as he chooses to supply him with that which he may lawfully use, provided such conduct does not change his relation to the licensor.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0HBOY8b2doEdmpkMU4ya2dKM28/view?resourcekey=0-wkQnv81hkT8WRZURR7z6tw https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0HBOY8b2doEdmpkMU4ya2dKM28... Displaying the picture to recruit new soldiers seems to me to be a non-commercial use, assuming you accept that (which I admit I am asserting without support) paying to have it be displayed on TV doesn't make it commercial.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    So you have the ludicrous situation where the US Army or Harvard University can probably use your photo on their website (with attribution) whereas the hobbyist blogger with some affiliate links arguably can't.

dspillett 5y ago

> A hobbyist with a blog? Probably commercial, if they are using the blog to promote themselves. Or if the blog carries advertising. In that case they are making something off carrying the adverts (or why else would they?) and the content is becoming part of the advertisers' (and the people in the middle's) business plan. For some content there is another distinction too: are they using the content or referring to it? Copying a large chunk of an article into their blog (or book or whatever) and quoting part of it (with attribution) are quite different things (the latter usually covered by "fair use" concepts).