[cc-community] chooser/deed language (was Re: NC/ND)
osm at inbox.org
Mon Dec 19 23:05:13 EST 2011
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>> 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.
It does not clearly involve an activity subject to copyright. If I
buy 10 copies of a book and distribute them to my auto mechanics class
students, I do not need permission from the copyright holder. Or if I
borrow 10 copies from a library (or 10 libraries) and let my auto
mechanics class students use them, I do not need permission from the
copyright holder. At least not in the United States. It is
permissible under the doctrine of first sale.
Yes, if I *copy* 10 copies of a book and distribute them to my auto
mechanics class students, I need permission from the copyright holder.
But same thing if I *copy* 1 copy of a book and use it to help me as
an auto mechanic fix an automobile I'm paid to work on. (Does the
license apply to that? I really don't know.)
Another similar situation, where the license is in grey area (the
"borrow from a library" is *not* grey area), would be if I made a copy
of a book and gave it to my employee who was an auto mechanic. Or if
I made a copy and gave it to my subcontractor who was an auto
> In any case, if you or anyone has concrete suggestions for improving
> language in the license chooser and/or deeds, *please send them!*
Well, I have several problems with that. 1) I don't know what the
license means; 2) I actually don't think the license means what people
want it to mean; and most importantly 3) I don't support the license -
I think the license is absolutely abominable - and therefore I do not
want to contribute in any way to helping CC continue to support its
>> 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.
Honestly, I don't see why you'd think that. CC does not have any
interest in having a study find that people tend to understand what NC
licenses mean, nor in having a study find that people tend to not
understand what NC licenses mean. Whereas anyone else who would be
willing to pay for such a study (and I think such a study, to be
unbiased, necessarily *would* cost money), likely would have a bias
one way or the other. (I certainly would be biased toward showing
that NC licenses are not understood, because like I said, I think NC
licenses are abominable.)
> In any case, I'd be very
> happy to work with any independent or otherwise researcher interested
> in studying such questions.
I don't think you're going to get an independent (i.e. unbiased)
researcher unless you pay them.
More information about the cc-community