[cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Tue Apr 24 20:29:59 EDT 2012


On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:04 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 April 2012 07:51:00 Anthony wrote:
>> If the original author can't exercise his right to the commercial
>> option, presumably s/he can't permit anyone else to use the work
>> commercially either.  So this means, for instance, s/he can't put the
>> work up on a facebook page, since facebook profits off facebook pages,
>> right?
>
> Wait. Are you maintinging that only the copyright holder can put NC licensed
> works on Facebook? (Because facebook makes money, not because of their TOS.)

It is my understanding that the NC licenses do not allow you to
distribute NC images on a page where you make money off advertising.
This is what Facebook does.  So they can't do it based on the NC
license, only with the permission of the copyright holder.

Is there something with this analysis which you disagree with?

> Are you maintaining that a person cannot take and NC book to a printer and pay
> to have 10 copies printed to give away as gifts?

Who is making the copies?  If it is the printer, then the printer
needs permission, and NC does not give that permission.  If it's the
person hiring the printer, then they don't need permission.  I could
see it argued either way.  It probably depends on the facts of the
situation.

In any case, practically speaking, what's the difference between a
person taking an NC book to a printer and paying to have 10 copies
printed, and a printer offering copies of an NC book made-to-order?
Is there an actual argument that one of these is exploiting the author
(*), and the other isn't?

(*) Or whatever the argument is in favor of NC.

> If so, let's discuss, if not, you have the answer to the question you posed.

Let's discuss.

> When someone makes a copy of an NC work and gives it to someone else, lots of
> people get and income and may make a profit. It is just that the person
> making the copy does not get the revenue and the person getting the copy may
> not pay anything in the process.

It is my understanding that one cannot make copies of an NC work and
give it to someone else, if they know that someone else is going to
make a profit.  That would mean that their copying was "directed
toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation".

But maybe I'm wrong about this.  This is what I was told when I
questioned whether or not it was okay for me to make 1000 copies of an
NC work, and give them to a friend, who then sold them.


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list