[cc-community] iTunes By-SA distribution?

Cc cc at phizz.demon.co.uk
Wed Aug 21 15:25:27 EDT 2013

As I recall the questions in the survey were atrociously framed, and 
didn't capture the nuances. There are a two broad categories of ads 
appearing on a website:

1) The hosting site puts them there eg LiveJournal.
2) The re-user is causing them to appear there to help pay for server costs.

I have no problem with the first case. The primary purpose of the re-use 
is to illustrate a personal blog.

As for the second case there are web pages which are simply photos 
gathered from web that are surrounded by Google Ads, the primary purpose 
of the re-use is to garner ad revenue - this is commercial. There are 
web pages that are adjunct to some commercial enterprise the primary 
purpose of the web page is to support some commercial activity. Then 
there are web pages where people are offsetting some hosting costs and 
otherwise the re-use is non-commercial.

As some one who exclusively uses the NC license for images, my take on 
ads on webpages is to ask "What is the primary purpose of the reuse?" In 
99% of cases the issue is clear cut, and almost certainly a good faith 
re-user knows whether they have crossed the commercial line. If they are 
not clear then simply ask.

On 21/08/2013 18:08, Emma Carpenter wrote:
> Now that's a very interesting question. CC actually commissioned a study
> on how the NC term should be interpreted, and what is or isn't
> considered commercial use, available in all its 255 pages of glory here:
> http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/Defining_Noncommercial_fullreport.pdf
> I read parts of the study as side research for my thesis a few months
> ago, so my knowledge of it is far from comprehensive, but the question
> of whether or not the hosting of content on an ad-supported site counts
> as commercial use was one that wasn't very well resolved.
> I do remember being surprised by how many respondents to one part of the
> surveys said that such use was, by definition, commercial. As an admin
> of a very large site, which uses ad revenue to pay the server rent but
> makes no profit, has no paid staff, and provides no paid services or
> content, I was baffled by the suggestion that anything we do - which
> could include using CC licensed works, although we don't do so at
> present - would be considered commercial by default. On the other hand,
> a site which is run as a profit-making venture, and where ads are used
> as a source of pure revenue, would seem to me to be a very different story.
> All of this is just my impression, though - as anyone brave enough to
> read the study will see, there's very little clarity on whether or not
> this type of use is prohibited by NC licences. That is, in fact, one of
> the major criticisms of CC in academic circles.
> Emma Carpenter

More information about the cc-community mailing list