[cc-licenses] Granularity on non-commercial restrictions
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Nov 17 10:35:12 EST 2005
I suggest we all do an experiment. Just give up on the NC option and be done
with it. In a year or two, evaluate your situation and see if you are doing
OK. BY-SA is about right for me.
I wouldn't mind a variation that called for like licenses in compilations, but
I have not thought of the issues that could cause.
all the best,
Tings - a BY-SA novel in progress.
On Thursday 17 November 2005 08:40 am, Ivan Castell wrote:
> 2005/11/16, Bjorn Wijers <mailings at bdisfunctional.net>:
> > I
> > have had the feeling the definition 'commercial' is just too hard to
> > define. Is somebody using Google Ads being commerical?
> That's exactly one of the questyions I posted some days ago. At the
> beginning I thought that using a BY-ND-NC image (unmodified, so no
> derivated work) on a post, on a blog licenced BY-ND-NC with Google Ads
> wasn't a violation of the licence because it wasn't a commercial attitude
> in a direct way (it's not the same thing to include an image 'as it is' on
> a post, as trying to sell a text that uses this image 'as it is'). But
> let's face it: Google ads brings you profit, and can then be defined as
> That's the example I use myself the other day to see it clearly: I release
> a film under a BY-ND-NC licence. A public TV station (no one pays for
> seeing it) broadcast my film, and put TV spots before and after the
> screening. I could also consider it as a commercial use. This could be even
> clearer if it was a paid TV channel, then screening my film is a commercial
> Is a
> > not-for-profit per se non-commerical?
> Not really. Non-profit organisation can have commercial practices to cover
> their non-profit goals.
> Is this idea about the amount of profit a better way of defining
> > commercial?
> I don't know if this is the best way fo aproacching it, but this could be a
> good start. I don't see too much people being upset if someone use their NC
> work on a blog/website with ads, but that's different if someone bring
> together a catalog of NC images, use ads on the site and it has a lot of
> succes and gets a lot of money from it, then it can be a commercial use of
> this images.
> Jesus, we need a clear definition of what's a non-commercial use, because
> anyone can have it's own interpretation and that's far too complicated.
> Or maybe having the possibility of apply some (optional) exceptions to the
> NC use should be enough for a lot of people.
> Mi Blog: http://ivancastell.org
More information about the cc-licenses