[cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved"
gmaxwell at gmail.com
Fri Apr 13 13:20:44 EDT 2012
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 April 2012 18:31, Heather Morrison <hgmorris at sfu.ca> wrote:
>> "Commercial rights reserved" does not mean the same thing as "noncommercial". Noncommercial includes the concept that a work is meant to be primarily or entirely outside of the commercial realm rather than the creator reserving commercial rights.
>> Some of us would like to broaden the part of our world that is not thought of in commercial terms - including many instances where people are paid for their work.
> What you describe is what many believe the NC license is, but what in
> fact it is not. You describe a totally new license. I would like to
> see a legally workable definition for that (I have not seen one), but
> please let us keep that to a separate thread.
I was in the process of writing a similar message.
Heather's goals are admirable, but they're unsupported by the license
text (or, in fact the text of any content license I've ever seen
drafted). The are representative of a common misunderstanding of the
meaning of the NC licenses, a misunderstanding furthered by the name
of the license. In reality, NC licensing prohibits (or at least
makes excessively risky) a great wealth of activity outside of the
"part of our world that is not thought of in commercial terms".
> where there was room for misunderstanding about intentions. However,
> Creative Commons can easily change the name, the label and the brand.
> My present proposal is based on keeping the present very restrictive
> legal re-use permission, while avoiding to label it with something
I think the proposal to change the name is an excellent one.
I think that CC-CRR "commercial rights reserved" might still be
surpassed with some additional thought by even better language— though
I admit I'd thought about this and never come up with anything as good
as that, I think the best I had was "Commercially Prejudiced license"—
but I think that "commercial rights reserved" is strictly superior to
non-commercial: It reduces the confusion that arises from people
believing that NC licenses promote anti-commercialism (which they do
not), and it strengthens that case where NC licenses have been
recommended where there wasn't confusion (when the creator hoped to
exploit the work commercially themselves).
More information about the cc-licenses