[cc-community] Fwd: Re: [cc-licenses] CC licenses version 4.0: some thoughts on noncommercial
ml at creativecommons.org
Tue Dec 20 19:26:34 EST 2011
Sending on to cc-community where general discussion of NC not
particular to 4.0 proposals in more appropriate.
The most immediate message being replied to is at
from which you can easily navigate to previous messages.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Heather Morrison <hgmorris at sfu.ca>
To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:02:14 -0800
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] CC licenses version 4.0: some thoughts on
Reply to message forwarded from Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au> (I think - apologies for any
confusion or bad excerpting):
Ben: Do you think vocational artists are never part of the public
sphere <URL:http://questioncopyright.org/vocationalism>? On what basis
do you exclude their commercial activities?
COMMENT: vocational artists may well want to restrict commercial uses
of their works - or to put this another way, those who may want to
become vocational artists may well be those who tend to license their
work NC. The works of vocational artists may be part of the public
sphere (e.g., a public concert) or entirely within the private sphere
(e.g. art sold at a private auction held by a private collector).
Ben: How can denying commercial use protect open access *more than*
not denying that use?
COMMENT: open access initiatives need resources to function, whether
volunteer, in-kind, or professional services that need cash. For
example, one business model for open access monographs involves free
copies online with the option to pay for print-on-demand. Restricting
the right to make money from such activities may be necessary for some
OA initiatives to survive.
Ben: Do you think there cannot be open commercial use?
Rather, ‘CC-BY-SA’, being a true copyleft, protects downstream open
access the most.
COMMENT: I agree with this.
Ben: I am in agreement with
<URL:http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC> the Freedom Defined
project in their reasonas against a non-commercial
The simplest reason is: selling free works is an excellent way of
funding more free works, and (since the work is free) is not harmful.
COMMENT: I am not familiar with the Freedom Defined project. On the
surface, this sounds to me like an oxymoron. Also, I am not sure why
one would assume that selling free works necessarily funds more free
works. Is this a requirement of any CC license? Could I not take a
CC-BY work, sell it, and pocket the profits?
Heather Morrison, MLIS
Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
More information about the cc-community