[cc-community] chooser/deed language (was Re: NC/ND)

Mike Linksvayer ml at creativecommons.org
Mon Dec 19 16:05:11 EST 2011


On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
>> I just have to say that of course BY-NC-ND is not at all, legally, a
>> _Your Rights Removed_ EULA. All CC licenses don't effect exceptions &
>> limitations, allow format shifting, and filesharing. But I'm sure
>> everyone reading this knows that.
>
> Right.  In legal terms, "Nothing in this License is intended to
> reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright or rights
> arising from limitations or exceptions that are provided for in
> connection with the copyright protection under copyright law or other
> applicable laws."
>
>> If some CC licenses are widely perceived as adding restrictions,
>> that's a bad thing, and to be weighed.
>
> It's right there in the "human-readable summary", as well as the
> questions that one answers to choose a license:
>
> "You may not use this work for commercial purposes."
> "Allow commercial uses of your work?"
>
> It seems clear to me that the plain language of that means that you
> can't *use* an NC work (for instance, one you borrowed from the
> library) *for* commercial purposes (for instance, to help you as a
> mechanic fix an automobile you're being paid to work on).

It seems clear to me that all of the language is with respect to
copyright/to the extent copyright permissions are required, but I am
certainly not the target audience. I've seen lots of questions about
what is permitted by NC licenses, but don't recall any about use in
the sense of the auto mechanic example. Distributing to auto mechanics
as part of a paid auto mechanic class, sure, lots of people have that
concern, but that clearly involves an activity subject to copyright.

In any case, if you or anyone has concrete suggestions for improving
language in the license chooser and/or deeds, *please send them!* Such
changes do require vetting, as they are highly visible, and make work
for translators, but they can be made independently of any versioning.

The connection with versioning might be that if versioning produces
licenses which can be more easily understood, perhaps license language
that can be used verbatim in "human readable" explanations so as to
minimize mismatch, that's a win; things to keep in mind for all 4.0
proposals.

>> I would love to
>> have some good research on perception of the various licenses and
>> effects of such perception, but I don't know of any. Doing such
>> research would be another way to help. :-)
>
> I'd certainly be biased on that one, even if it was something I was
> capable of undertaking.  Really anything other than a CC led study is
> likely to be biased.

A CC led study is likely to be unbiased? My default expectation of a
study led by the organization whose ~products are being studied would
be bias. Not that CC wouldn't do its best. In any case, I'd be very
happy to work with any independent or otherwise researcher interested
in studying such questions.

Mike


More information about the cc-community mailing list