zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Dec 15 07:45:32 EST 2011
On Wednesday 14 December 2011 15:18:05 jonathon wrote:
> On 14/12/11 17:41, Anthony wrote:
> > The problems with the NC licenses go far beyond that. They muddy the
> > waters as to what is permitted. In fact, the way they are implemented
> > *confuses* authors as to what they are permitting.
> Back to my favorite description of CC-BY-SA-NC: "It doesn't protect what
> you think it protects, and it does not grant what you think it grants."
> > The question for the NC license is "Allow commercial uses of your
> work?" But copyright *does not cover use* of a work. It covers
> copying, it covers distribution, it covers modification, and it covers
> public performance/display.
> NC refers to distribution. Distribution must be non-commercial in
> nature. Precisely what "non-commercial" means, is subject to debate.
> NC also allows/requires the collection of royalty payments for audio and
> visual works. BY-SA does not have that clause. (Indeed, I've seen it
> argued that BY-SA prohibits collection of royalty payments for audio and
> visual works.)
Even if this is so with respect to BY-SA works, the cc licenses are not
exclusive so you could at the same time offer another license which would
permit the collection of royalty payments. Then, if the user did not want
to / could not meet the terms of the BY-SA license, then the other one could
kick in. Or am I missing something obvious?
> > For NC licenses to cover *use* of a work they would need to be EULAs, and
> > they are not (they explicitly are not).
> There are those that treat CC-BY-NC-ND as a _Your Rights Removed_ EULA.
all the best,
More information about the cc-community