Cc-au mailing list

[Jessica Coates <j2.coates AT qut.edu.au>]

Title: Message

The examples cited in the ACC fact sheet of uses that could be allowed under a non-commercial licence are pretty extreme - it seems unlikely that a court would view any use by a commercial body in the course of their business (eg by giving corporate gifts or playing music in a commercial space) as a non-commercial use.

 

The use of the phrase 'primarily intended for commercial use' is meant to allow third parties who provide commercial services to facilitate uses that are otherwise non-commercial eg a commercial printer printing the flyers for your charity event.

 

However, you're right in thinking that there isn't a lot of case law so far. There has been one case in which a Netherlands court held that a tabloid magazine publishing a photo was in breach of a CC non-commercial licence - so at least we know that using a CC work as a small element in a larger commercial publication is still commercial.

 

CC has tried to address the issue by developing guidelines as to what amounts to non-commercial use, which you can find on their website here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5752. They clearly exclude pretty much all the examples put forward by the ACC. Unfortunately, they're still at the draft stage and have been for a while, because of debate in the community.

 

In response, CC has announced it will undertake a study this year to look at the non-commercial issue, to try to come up with a clearer definition.

 

But remember there are a lot of arguments in favour of not pinning things down too much - that way we end up with ridiculously detailed clauses that don't do what they're meant to do (see the recent format-shifting amendments to the Copyright Act). Phrases like non-commerical are used in licences all the time, and usually we trust courts to take a common sense interpretation of them.

 

 

Jessica Coates

Project Manager

Creative Commons Clinic

Queensland University of Technology

 

ph: 07 3138 8301

fax: 07 3138 9598

email: j2.coates AT qut.edu.au

 

---

From: cc-au-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-au-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Michela Ledwidge
Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2008 2:51 PM
To: cc-au AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [cc-au] ACC advice on CC

Hi all

 

This is from an old thread, hopefully not too late, interested in other people's thoughts. Was posting from the wrong address...

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michela Ledwidge [mailto:michela AT modfilms.com]
Sent: 12 March 2008 10:45
To: cc-au AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: RE: [cc-au] cc-au Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3

David, thanks for the link.

 

I didn't find it overly subjective. Good food for thought. No surprises that there are flaws in the CC licensing. But there are a lot of 'mights' and 'mays' in that document. Are TV companies actively breaking the spirit of CC licensing and using material on air without permission, any more than they do with copyrighted work?

 

It has never been easier to signpost non-attributed material, regardless of the license, and in my experience CC media creators still get asked permission. Is the ACC perhaps laying it on a bit thick? 

 

>Further, when it comes to the 'NonCommercial' licences, the prohibition relates only to uses of the relevant work 'in a manner that is

> primarily intended or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation' (my emphasis). This wording still

> allows—without payment—any business or corporation to use your work in items such as corporate gifts, calendars, publications and

> websites, and in any other way that might only secondarily achieve a commercial advantage.

 

What is CC doing to addressing these concerns in public?

 

This distinction over primary and secondary intention towards commercial advantage is certainly interesting. I'd like to hear more on that with regards to use on free-to-air TV and in shopping malls. How can this be legal if the license specifies that there be attribution?

 

What actual examples of 'blatantly commercial uses' that are cited, of Attribution Non-Commercial license material, have been tested in court?

 

As a producer of CC licensed work I'm a lot less interested in the academic debate than what our up-to-the-minute options are with regards to actual or perceived breaches of licensing. 

 

Surely all this Semantic Web nonsense can help CC license authors to sort out the legal hacks the old guard are so scared of...

 

Cheers

    .M.

-----Original Message-----
From: cc-au-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-au-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of David
Sent: 11 March 2008 23:08
To: cc-au AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [cc-au] cc-au Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3

I just read the ACC's paper on Creative Commons here:
http://www.copyright.org.au/g094.pdf

I'm a fan of Creative Commons, but not a one-eyed lunatic.
I also paid attention to the statement of the ACC's objectives at the end.

Did anyone find it to be something other than the subjective attack like I found the other article Brianna cited?

Both those papers on CC thoroughly contradict the ACC's objectives. I'm just wondering if I've got my head full of CC sand.

I would find it very hard to request my employer to cough up the lavish total$ to attend all of these sessions in addition to my time, given ACC HQ's path seems very crooked.

David.

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:20 AM, <cc-au-request AT lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:24:12 +1100
From: "Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher AT gmail.com>
Subject: [cc-au] Events: BarCampSydney, Aus Copyright Council
       copyright training sessions
To: Wikimedia-au <wikimediaau-l AT lists.wikimedia.org>,
       cc-au AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
       <d20d84ea0803092324l57df7836s34abac385160880b AT mail.gmail.com">d20d84ea0803092324l57df7836s34abac385160880b AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hello folks,

Some events of interest:


I recall that the ACC is quite negative towards CC licenses (e.g.
<http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/articles_pdf/a06n04.htm>)
but I suppose these sessions would still be quite interesting and useful.

cheers,
Brianna

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: 11/03/2008 13:41

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: 11/03/2008 13:41

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1343 - Release Date: 25/03/2008 19:17