Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

Jonathon Blake wrote:
> Terry wrote:
>
> On 2/14/07, Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
>
> > But they also EXPLICITLY state that they allow everything allowed by "fair 
> > use".
>
> US Statute Law regarding "The Fair Use Doctrine" allows for things
> which are explicitly prohibited by the CC-NC licence.
>
> With the NC licence, if you met a specific set of criteria (natural
> person, or "IRS registered non-profit") you may use the material.  If
> you aren't, you may not use the material.  "The Fair Use Doctrine"
> simply defines what may be done with the material _without_ requesting
> permission from the creator.  The CC-NC is a EULA, and as such, trumps
> "Fair Use Doctrine".

No.

As Terry points out, the CC licenses explicitly preserve all fair uses. 
 Even if they "trumped" fair use, they immediately give all fair uses 
back to the licensee.

"2. Fair Use Rights. Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, 
limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other 
limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under 
copyright law or other applicable laws."

> > > CC-NC is a EULA.  As such, it is technically _more_ restrictive than ARR 
> > > would be.
>
> > Hence anything you are permitted to do with ARR you are also permitted
> > to do with any CC license.
>
> If that is true, then the NC Guidelines are false.

No.

See the "explanation" at the top of the Guidelines, which explicitly 
state that the guidelines (and the "noncommercial" restriction) do not 
limit fair use.


Because I am a lawyer, I should note that this is not legal advice.

James