[cc-community] Contradictory meanings of "non-commercial"?
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Fri Feb 8 03:02:59 EST 2008
rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting Terry Hancock <hancock at anansispaceworks.com>:
>>IMHO, those last two would be abuses of NC licensing (I don't know what
>>the "76 ball case" is). The problem wasn't "commercial use", it was use
>>of someone's likeness without permission. The CC licenses expressly do
>>not confer rights to likenesses, and so the users should've known they
>>didn't have those kinds of rights.
> NC is the solution, now what's the problem? ;-)
> To put the issue in context; if a not-for-profit charity had made the
> poster for use non-commercially the issue of personality rights would
> still be the same regardless of NC.
Right. More proof that NC wasn't really the issue.
It's more-or-less a coincidence that NC terms would've stopped the
Virgin case -- it just so happens that their use both was commercial
*and* violated publicity rights, there's no real correlation between the
Fred Beneson wrote:
> See : http://lessig.org/blog/2006/09/autoweek_on_come_on.html
Note that this article says that NC was in fact used for the "76 ball
case", so that's a red herring. The issue here was blatant infringement
(and conflation of *all* CC licensing with "public domain").
Unfortunately, in that case, neither a publicity release nor the NC nor
any terms at all would've solved the problem. This is a question of
enforcement, not license terms.
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-community