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

Fred Benenson fred.benenson at gmail.com
Fri Feb 8 10:42:39 EST 2008


>
> Fred Beneson wrote:
> > See : http://lessig.org/blog/2006/09/autoweek_on_come_on.html
> > and
> > http://lessig.org/blog/2006/09/update_on_autoweek.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.


The point of the 76 ball case is that it *did solve* the problem -- by
licensing the photograph as NC the photographer was able to rally a
community around protecting his rights. He was able to say "Look! They used
my NC licensed photograph commercially. This is wrong." Other people agreed,
called attention to the fact and AutoWeek apologized. The CC license
provided the legal backing for a community to take the magazine to task.

It was unfortunate that the magazine claimed they confused CC with the
public domain, but there's the chance that this is merely a convenient
excuse (the event culprit was an intern).




>
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
> --
> Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080208/c7e21b50/attachment.htm 


More information about the cc-community mailing list