[cc-community] What does NC means?
jonathon
jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Sat Sep 15 22:14:15 EDT 2007
Milos wrote:
> Also, I think that NC licenses are becoming a huge problem on Internet
> (which is generated by CC).
+1
I think the major issue is that most people that use the NC license,
have no clue as to the consequences of that choice.
Flicker, and sites that have CC-BY-NC or CC-By-NC-SA as a default
license are doing their users a grave disservice.
> This makes NC licenses almost without any sense.
They have a sense,but one which is undefined.
> Actually, the only thing which is doing is making NC content incompatible with non-NC content.
That becomes an issue only when one wants to mix "gratis"content with
"libre" content.
The murky issue is whether or not a specific usage of "gratis"
material is consistent with the theory of what "Non-Commercial" means
to the person who created the "gratis" content.
> 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
The utility of NC in advertising is iffy.
> 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.
I think Enrique is operating under some major misunderstandings about
what "NC" and "ND" means in practice.
> But, the list of *real/valid* needs is not endless.
True.
> And it covers only some very specific occupations
>which interfere with Internet possibilities.
The Internet is not the only place is which CC licenses are used. They
are probably more useful for non-Internet usage than Internet usage.
>Some of them will stay specific (small part of artist photographers), some of
The CC-BY-NC-SA license does not have the license implications that a
professional photographer would expect them to have.
>them will become outdated as professions (there is no need for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
The professional photographers are the ones who are losing, by the
proliferation of gratis or libre photographs on one hand, and the rise
in the economic power of the stock photo giants on the other. (Adding
insult to injury, the stock photo giants have no qualms about charging
for the gratis or libre photos that they copied from elsewhere.)
>a journalist photo of some event is valuable only if it may be
published very fast.
Because of quirks in "fair use" and copyright law, a photo-journalist
probably won't be paid royalties for their original content --- except
for months or years later.
(And if your original content was stolen by Disney, CBS-Time-Warner,
or one of Murdoch's media outlets, you can say goodbye to ever getting
royalties from that photograph. You can also expect them to demand
payment of royalties for the privilege of allowing you to use your
photograph, even though they stole it from you.)
> 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?
>If NC is not really NC, then I may ask myself is SA really SA.
"Share Alike" is defined in the CC Contract. As such, it is fairly
difficult to morph it into something that is non-SA. (As a side
effect of their policies, Youtube has morphed SA work into non-SA.
Youtube polices are discongruent with _all_ of the Creative Commons
Licenses.)
> 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.
The focus of Creative Commons is _not libre content. If it was,
neither the NC nor the ND clauses would be used. Nor is the focus
gratis content. If it was, then only the NC option would be used.
With a clear definition in the contract of what "NC" means.
Drew wrote:
>I think that a lot more than you might at first think may be
prohibited by using NC opening up users of the songbook to royalties
and law suits.
The 9 March 2006 District Court of Amsterdam case "Curry v Weekend"
involved the CC-BY-NC-SA license.
The 17 February 2006 Lower Court number six of Badajoz case "Sociedad
General de Autores y Editores ("SGAE") v Metropol (Ricardo Andrés
Utrera Fernández involved CC-BY-SA licenses.
AFAIK, those are the only two court cases that directly involved CC
licenses. Had the Spanish nightclub used CC-NC material, they would
have been liable for royalty payments.
xan
jonathon
More information about the cc-community
mailing list