[cc-community] What does NC means?
Milos Rancic
millosh at gmail.com
Sat Sep 15 19:08:34 EDT 2007
I didn't explain my position completely. I am using GPL, GFDL or
CC-BY-SA for my works and I've never considered usage of any kind of
NC license for my work.
Also, I think that NC licenses are becoming a huge problem on Internet
(which is generated by CC).
Jonathon explained that (according to one of the theories) it is
possible to make profit from NC content "under certain conditions".
This makes NC licenses almost without any sense. Actually, the only
thing which is doing is making NC content incompatible with non-NC
content.
And one thing more before the point. I completely understand some
needs for both NC and ND. One professional photographer may prefer NC
for her/his advertising. I understand that some people want to work on
non-commercial culture and because of that they are using NC (but we
may see how effective NC is here for that purpose). One my friend
artist is making movies which parts may be used for making pornography
and I understand his need for ND. Enrique explained that there are
*some* forms which need ND (like religious hymns); etc.
But, the list of *real/valid* needs is not endless. And it covers only
some very specific occupations which interfere with Internet
possibilities. Some of them will stay specific (small part of artist
photographers), some of them will become outdated as professions
(there is no need for non-free photos of New York from Empire State
Building because there are a lot of such free photos) and some of them
will get some other purpose (a journalist photo of some event is
valuable only if it may be published very fast).
NC licenses make a real mass on the Internet. Even Jonathon said that
it is possible to interpret that NC content may be used for copying
for profit (like "all NC content on one DVD for 1 EUR"), I am sure
that I will not do that because there are two other theories which say
completely different.
And NC licenses are made by CC, which means that CC has social
responsibility for that mass. And, at least, CC should try to solve
it.
I am not a lawyer, but I may see that it started to make big problems
with collaborative projects licensed by some of the NC licenses. This
problem will only become bigger as more content is licensed under some
of the NC licenses.
Is it possible to make two options for the future NC users: To make a
license for the specific kind of works which is *really* NC ("Gratis
Commons") and to give possibility that people on collaborative
projects make switch to, for example, BY-SA?
One thing is clear: If this confusion continue to exist CC would not
be safe field for free content. If NC is not really NC, then I may ask
myself is SA really SA.
The other is not so clear, but very possible: If CC will not take
responsibility for its own social products, it would be remembered as
a creator of a big chaos inside of communities which support free
content.
On 9/15/07, Terry Hancock <hancock at anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
> > If it is legal to put commercials on the NC content (and it seems that
> > it is), is it legal to put NC content inside of some printed edition
> > which is getting profit from commercials (and you may get that edition
> > for free)?
>
> Nope. Not according to the guidelines. If you make a profit, then you
> are a "for profit organization" and you cannot use NC works. Period. "Do
> not collect $200. Go straight to jail." :-)
>
> > And if is so, what is the purpose of NC? Not to make profit by
> > selling, but to make profit from commercials?
>
> I think there might be some use in such a license. Maybe. But that's
> evidently not the case for NC.
>
> > If it is not, consider that NC is useful only on Internet and that
> > only 1/6 of humans are *able* to use Internet. In this case I don't
> > see any valid reason for supporting such license except for supporting
> > people who think that it is fancy to have CC logo on their site.
>
> And here you put your finger on the problem with NC licenses.
>
> The truth is that NC licenses have EXACTLY ONE practical use: you
> can use them to legally distribute sample copies of your work which
> people can share *at their own expense* (no commercials, no copying
> fees, etc). This is done as free advertising to help sell your work,
> which you still profit from selling copies of or licensing to
> commercial-advertising driven channels.
>
> IOW, it is not a "community" or a "commons" license. It's just a niche
> license for commercial content creators to use. It is not about helping
> the 5/6ths of the world that you appear to be concerned about. It is
> just another way to make money from your creative works via alternative
> marketing and "hyperdistribution" to use some industry buzzwords.
>
> You might also appreciate the irony of the naming: the CC
> "non-commercial" license is rational only for COMMERCIAL content
> creators. So the name is really deceptive. It should really have some
> more appropriate name like "commercial use reserved" -- something which
> would remind users that the license is only meaningful if the copyright
> owner is trying to profit from the work commercially.
>
> This is why some people think that NC (and ND) licenses should not be
> advertised under the same "Creative Commons" banner as By and By-SA
> licenses. The point being that these licenses have such different
> missions that they can't meaningfully be marketed together.
>
> If you want to create works non-commercially, without expecting direct
> financial remuneration and you want the advantages of collective editing
> and improvement of the work, and you want to be able to distribute it
> more widely, AND you want to avoid the work being leeched and
> sequestered into proprietary works which will compete with your
> freely-created community project -- THEN you want to be using a
> "ShareAlike" license, NOT a "non-commercial" license.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
> --
> Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
More information about the cc-community
mailing list