Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] [cc-community] Commercial Rights Reserved

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: P-M <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] [cc-community] Commercial Rights Reserved
  • Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:32:25 +0000

On 14/12/2012 01:56, Chris Sakkas wrote:
Hey P-M,

On 14 December 2012 11:42, P-M <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk
<mailto:cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk>> wrote:


The point that is being made is that the work is released into a
non-commercial commons. A commons where people aren't primarily
exploiting the work of others for private gain. Commercial Rights
Reserved is misleading as in many cases it is not weak commercialism
that is being resisted but strong commercialism. So the use of a photo
by a local community group in a publication from which they hope to
raise a few quid is NOT the same as the use of the image by WALMART made
into posters or greetings cards. Similarly a band playing a song in a
club from which they get a cut of the door money is not the same as
Toyota using the song in an advertisement.



Cory Doctorow, in his discussion with Nina Paley, called this the
industrial/non-industrial divide. Walmart is industrial, a community
group raising some money is not.

But the NC licences don't allow 'weak commercialism' any more than they
allow 'strong commercialism'. They ban both industrial and
non-industrial uses of the resource. If you use NC to stop Walmart, you
stop the band playing in a club as well. That's one reason why I prefer
CRR: because it explains what the licence term does, which is exclude
bands and community groups from the NC Commons as well as Walmart and
Monsanto.



I'm well aware of the problems but currently NC is the best we have. Its like accepting Apple juice though we'd rather have Mango juice.


In the past we may have used ARR and chosen not to get uppity at certain reusers. With NC we still do that. The NC license simply indicates to those that are definitely non-commercial, who care about copyright and doing the right thing that no one is going to come after them for reuse. Also it lowers the psychological bar for those that are slightly commercial and care about copyright that an ask to reuse isn't going to be rebuffed. For those that don't care about copyright all the licenses are meaningless anyway.


Now several years ago I was definitely in the no atom of commercialism shall touch these works ever, and I'm truly sorry for those that made genuine requests and were rebuffed during that period.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page