zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Mar 9 07:45:55 EST 2005
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 12:05 am, Greg London wrote:
> Todd A. Jacobs said:
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 01:42:02PM -0500, Greg London wrote:
> >> 4.b says you may not exercise the rights granted in 3.b (create a
> >> derivative work) if it intended for commercial use.
> > It says "primarily intended." Note that it does not preclude commercial
> > use per se, it simply says you can't excercise the rights with a
> > primary intent of using it that way. *shrug*
> > If I use a BY-NC work, release the derivative as BY (without "intent" to
> > make money), then I'm technically free to do so. Then what might happen?
> Look. Whatever you're doing with other people's licenses. Just stop.
> Talk with an attorney. Or listen to some of the folks who've been
> on the list for awhile. Otherwise, you're just going to make
> a lot of people you put their work under a CC-NC license really mad.
> You cannot remove the "NC" restriction off of someone's work.
I think the issue is not removing it from their work but from your derivative
of their work. I am not argueing either way, just talking and asking
I just went to the choose license page here:
Allow modifications of your work?
Yes, as long as others share alike (more info more information)
Assume we have already chosen NC above this section.
We then haved three choices, the first yields:
You have selected the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License.
The second yields:
You have selected the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
And the third yields:
You have selected the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
So, the difference between one and two is that two has to stay two but one
cane become tow or three as well? (Actuall derivatives of one can become.)
> The license GRANTS certain rights to USE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE,
> and CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS with the restriction that none
> of those uses be commercial.
> The license doesn't say anything about being able to
> REMOVE A LICENSE RESTRICTION just because your intent
> wasn't commercial. The license grants some rights on
> how to use the work noncommercially. The license remains
> You can use the work for whatever non-commercial use.
> But nowhere does it say you can remove the NC restriction
> just because your not "primarily intended" to commercial use.
> Nowhere does it say you can remove ANY restriction.
> You can add MORE restrictions to CC-NC.
> but you cant take away what the author never granted you.
> And an author that licenses their work CC-NC never granted
> you the right to use the work commercially and never
> granted you the right to remove the commercial restriction.
> > Someone downstream to my license might legitimately commercialize
> > something (with intent to make money), and still be in compliance with
> > the license that they have.
> Think about that for a second.
> Alice licenses her song CC-NC.
> Bob wants to use it in a commercial setting.
> By your logic, all he has to do is find some
> guy willing to claim he didn't "primarily
> intend" to use the work commercially,
> get him to remove the 'NC' restriction,
> and suddenly Bob can make money off Alice's song.
> If that were the case, CC-NC would be pointless
> because all the corporate interests would be able
> to find some rube to take NC off the license.
Again, I would hope the confusion is only related to derivatives and not to
re-licensing or sublicensing originals as to my reading of things, that is
not permitted at all.
> > This isn't meant to rekindle the (very lame) debate about liability for
> > that sort of thing. Rather, the whole point here is that, without the
> > requirement to release downstream works under a similar license, all
> > sorts of weirdness ensues.
> No weirdness ensues.
> A CC-NC work will always remain a CC-NC work
> until the original author decides otherwise.
> no one else can make that decision.
all the best,
More information about the cc-licenses