Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - license unclarity

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: license unclarity
  • Date: 1 May 2005 12:11:35 +0900

Hello. Just some quick thoughts. Just for the sake of clarity, I present
three arguments.


Argument 1: NonCommercial and NoMonetaryExchange face similar set of
questions/troubles.

I can name some of the questions, though hardly have a good grasp of the
whole scope.

1) Is non-monetary gain acceptable?

There are gift certificate, frequent flyer miles, postage, and other things
that are of relatively stable value. Some has clear indication of how much
the value is, others (flyer miles) don't.

What if people ask specific things - a TV station offering CC-NC'd TV program
in exchange for two blank DVD's, a non-profit organization offering CC-NC'd
CD for anyone who collect 500 signatures for a certain cause, and so on.

2) Is indirect benefit okay?

Can a work be offered as a "free bonus for anybody who purchases $50.00 or
more"?

Can a copyshop sell paper and binding service to a customer in exchange for
free printing of a CC-NC/NME'd booklet?

Can a free offer used in advertisement to lure customers to the store?

Can there be a cover charge to an event where some CC-NC/NME works are
offered for free?

Can a marketing company offer to give you a free copy in exchange for
their personal information that the company can sell in turn?

Can a company ask people to watch advertisements in order to receive a
free copy?

-=-=-

Argument 2: There is a trade-off between having clear license restrictions
and
having effective license restrictions.

Thinking about the above possibilities, I wonder if it is possible at all
to draw a very clear and simple line between what's acceptable and
what's not when it comes to NonCommercial or NonMonetaryExchange license.
If there is a line, it may be with some loopholes. (e.g. Prohibiting only
monetary
compensation is not quite effective to stop profit-making from a work.)

Where is the best balance, if there is a trade-off?

Left unclear, the court will interpret the license and draw a line. I am not
necessarily sure if that is a good idea. There is one clear benefit: the
court will consider specifics of individual cases, and try to draw a
reasonable line.
But lawsuit costs money, some artists may find it financially too costly to
enforce his license against seeming violator if the intent license is
unclear.

-=-=-

Argument 3: CC-NC license unclarity is not a big deal in a grand scheme of
things.

I wonder if the license unclarity really matters that much.

After all, CC-NC'd works are usually available online for free. If a company
tries to
benefit indirectly by offering the work, their competitors may be able to do
the same,
and individuals can simply go online to get the same content without
purchasing anything.

So the CC-NC'd work may effectively remain non-commercial.



Hope this could provoke some thoughts.

Best regards,

Tomos



  • license unclarity, wiki_tomos, 04/30/2005

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page