Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Granularity on non-commercial restrictions

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ivan Castell <ivancastell AT gmail.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Granularity on non-commercial restrictions
  • Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:40:11 +0100

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 commercial.

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 use.

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.

Ivan

--
-----------------------------------------
Mi Blog: http://ivancastell.org


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page