[cc-community] Contradictory meanings of "non-commercial"?

Christoph Schiller cs at motionmountain.net
Wed Feb 6 16:22:44 EST 2008


On the summary page
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/
it says:
"Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes."

But the full licence says:
"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3
above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. "

I am no lawyer, but between "not ... for commercial purposes"
and "not primarily ... directed to commercial advantage" there is a
big difference.

The same difference between the summary and
the full licence appears also in other languages.

The problem is the following: one might use the licence in
the belief that it forbids commercial use (it is called
"non-commercial" after all!) but in fact the legal code
allows commercial use, especially if it is a secondary aim.

What is the sense of this apparent contradiction?
Is the term "primarily" clear for lawers? For example,
if somebody claims to make losses with the sale/performance/etc.
of the work, does he  conform to the NC licence?
(This happened in a famous Hollywood film, on which
the studio claimed to have made losses.)

Thank you for any clarification.

                           Christoph Schiller





More information about the cc-community mailing list