[cc-community] What does NC means?

Peter Brink peter.brink at brinkdata.se
Mon Sep 17 09:37:01 EDT 2007


Milos Rancic skrev:
> On 9/16/07, Peter Brink <peter.brink at brinkdata.se> wrote:
>> Milos Rancic skrev:
>>> 1. NC is not NC, which implies that even authors who have reasonable
>>> reasons for using NC are not protected.
>>> 2. It is possible to use NC for anything, which implies that we have
>>> bigger and bigger mass on the Internet.
>>>
>> Do you have any kind of evidence for your accusations? If so - do you
>> mind sharing it with the list?
> 
> 1) Besides a number of commercial sites which host NC content and make
> profit via using them (including YouTube and Flickr) without
> mentioning that they *are* making money on NC content (are there some
> note that you are not able to put someone else NC content there?),
> there is a serious contradiction inside of the terms of such NC usage.
> 
> Making derivate works is the basic right for every SA license,
> including BY-NC-SA (as well as BY-NC). If someone uploaded derivate NC
> work to YouTube or Flicker, s/he allows third party to generate profit
> by using NC content.

But this is not any fault of the behalf of CC. When you register an 
account at (for example) Flicker you give Yahoo "the license to use, 
distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly 
display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which 
such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only 
for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the 
Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such 
Content from the Service."

Yahoo does not license the content under a CC-license. That this fact is 
not obvoius to the casual user is not a fault of CC.

If someone uploads a derivative work which is licensed BY-NC to Flicker 
then it's the uploader who's violating the terms of the license - not 
Yahoo.

> 
> 2) NC is basically useless outside of Internet which means that it is
> completely useless in undeveloped countries. For example, in Kenya is
> not possible to spread any work without their specific commercial
> network. Also, even in much more developed countries in Europe it is
> hard to spread any non-commercial document (how many non-commercial
> "stores" do you have in your neighborhood?).

And? Why is CC to blame for this? Really - this is also not the fault of CC.

> 
> Also, NC content is becoming significant part of the content on
> Internet (compare Flicker photos:
> http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/). And it is not possible to
> make any kind of derivate work based on NC and non-NC content.
> 

So? That's an fully legitimate choice made by the author. Again CC has 
nothing to do with it.

/Peter Brink


More information about the cc-community mailing list