[cc-community] selling CC-BY-NC-ND

Tom Sparks tom_a_sparks at yahoo.com.au
Tue Apr 29 22:59:58 EDT 2008


the reason why i am using this license
* the media is both positive and negative (and over
coming personal
hurdles)
* the media could be remixed into something that goes
against my
reputation, the community reputation, the Licensor
reputation etc
* I do not want to use the media for commercial
purposes.

Tom Sparks
GPG: 07A6 4D1E 65EE 593F 9CA9  6E11 B62A CF13 2B6E
B159


On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 12:04 -0700, Art Neill wrote:
> Yes, it is incorrect to say
> 
> "BY-NC-ND is a restrictive EULA that removes rights
that ARR[all
> rights reserved] grants. xan"
> 
> None of the Creative Commons licenses "take away"
from the default set
> of rights(All Rights Reserved) granted in copyright
law (fair use
> being the most significant).  They all exist in a
spectrum between All
> Rights Reserved and No Rights Reserved (public
domain).
> 
> It is true that, of the Creative Commons licenses,
the attribution -
> noncommerical - no derivatives (BY-NC-ND) is among
the more
> restrictive, therefore, further on the spectrum
towards all rights
> reserved.  However, you can produce, distribute,
display, etc full,
> verbatim copies of BY-NC-ND works so long as it is
done
> noncommercially and the work is not modified.  You
cannot do so with
> All Rights Reserved unless you have some kind of
fair use argument.
> Any fair use argument also exists for the BY-NC-ND
licensee. Therefore
> fair use rights(technically an affirmative defense
for legal purposes)
> added to the rights granted under BY-NC-ND results
in MORE rights than
> a default, all rights reserved copyright.
> 
> How about an example.  Let's say that a network
licensed a show
> BY-NC-ND.  I could then distribute copies of the
show verbatim so long
> as I didn't do it commercially or modify the show
(blast email it to
> friends, host it on my personal website).  All
rights reserved would
> not allow this type of use.
> 
> It's not ideal, and its not the license we choose to
use at
> NewMediaRights.org or UCAN.org, but I'll take
BY-NC-ND over All Rights
> Reserved any day.
> 
> art
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Lloyd
<cc at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> >  > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:47 PM, jonathon
<jonathon.blake at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  >> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Mike
Linksvayerwrote:
> >  >>  >  One might argume that BY-NC-ND doesn't
allow users to do much more
> >  >>
> >  >>  BY-NC-ND is a restrictive EULA that removes
rights that ARR grants.
> >  >
> >  > So what such rights are not covered by section
2 of
> >  >
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode
?
> >  >
> >
> >  jonathon doesn't like NC and tends to obfuscate
the issues. If something
> >  is ARR the only use allowed outside of
permissions is that of
> >  'fair-use'. An NC license cannot deny someone of
a 'fair-use' defense.
> >
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  cc-community mailing list
> >  cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > 
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> >
> 
> 
> 



      Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail





More information about the cc-community mailing list