Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Revised License Drafts

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jim Sowers" <jim AT>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Revised License Drafts
  • Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:33:02 -0800

Thanks Mia.  I had assumed that there had been discussion on this, but was being lazy, as reviewing archives (or bug posts) before posting (or filing a bug) can take some time.  Forgive me on that front.  I will try to read some of the archives.

My take away is that a BlogSpot blogger -- who pays nothing for bandwidth -- would/should likely be prohibited.  I mean, that is Google's business model: we supply you tools and ad sponsors, you supply us content and traffic; our ad sponsors pay for the bandwidth, and then some, which we share with you.

The devil is always in the details, and I'm not trying to lawyer this to death.  However, looking to people's intentions as you know is problematic.

From a very pragmatic standpoint, and where this started, is that my non-lawyer friends have asked me: "If I post stuff using a CC non-commercial license, can people use it in their blogs that have ad campaigns where they are getting paid?"  They want a short simple answer.  And I couldn't give them one.


On 11/1/06, Mia Garlick <mia AT> wrote:
actually, at the risk of starting the NonCommercial discussion again
(which has already been extensively debated on the list if you review
the archives) and is not part of the Version 3.0 discussion (to which
your email was sent in reply) what NC means depends on the intention
of the licensor when applying the license condition to their work.
CC has a discussion draft of NonCommercial Guidelines in an effort to
clarify what the term means (see
NonCommercial_Guidelines); *such* Guidelines are, as the name
suggests, not finalized or definitive however, they do not make a
distinction based on whether the ads are used to pay just for
bandwidth or not.

On Nov 1, 2006, at 6:34 AM, Pascal Muller wrote:

> On 11/1/06, Jim Sowers <jim AT > wrote:
> Q: Does taking content that has a non-commercial restriction and
> using on a website that runs AdSense violate the non-comm.
> restriction?  Assume that the primary driver of traffic is the use
> of CC licensed content?
> The language in the license in 4 (c) is: "You may not exercise any
> of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above
> in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
> commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."
> Seems like this could cover a lot of AdSense-based sites.  Just
> wondering what the current thinking is on this.
> If those ads are to pay exclusively for the bandwidth bill, and not
> to make a profit out of it, I guess it's allowed, because it isn't
> cial advantage in that case..
> --
> Pascal Muller
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT

cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page