Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Non-commercial ***advertising revenue***

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • To: peter.brink AT brinkdata.se, Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Non-commercial ***advertising revenue***
  • Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:51:42 -0400

On Tuesday 13 March 2007 05:38 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
> Jonathon Blake skrev:
> (from the "Non-commercial ***advertising revenue***" thread)
>
> > But will I win a lawsuit against an individual, or company that puts
> > my NC-licenced material on a website that has Google adds next to it,
> > or requires one to click on an add to view my NC content?
> >
> > My understanding --- which is part of the NC material I wrote ---
> > states that that is clearly commercial, and as such is a violation of
> > the CC-NC licence.
>
> IMO, if a licensor explains how he understands the terms of the license,
> for example in his own version of the deed document, he (and the
> licensee) would likely be bound by that statement. However his statement
> must be clearly visible to a prospective the licensee and easily
> available to him, for example on the web page from where one downloads
> content.
>
> If I would post my own definition of the term "non-commercial" where I
> defined commercial, among other things, as "any activity that make use
> of the work as a way of generating revenues, for example posting the
> work next to adds." and also "use by educational institutions, such as
> schools and universities, are not considered commercial in this
> context", then I would probably win a case where the licensee had used
> my NC-licensed material on a website that had Google adds all over it.

I have heard these "private" take arguments as to meaning before. I am not
disagreeing with the take, but the take will seriously complicate the reuse /
remix value for CC licensed works (and not just NC at that) - Can you
imagine a work making use of tne or twenty NC works? And some
multigenerational at that? And the take of all of those people as to what NC
means giverns the final use?

Surely there must be a better way to handle this issue? Thoughts anyone? (Or
amd I seeing a problem where none exists?)
>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

drew
--
(da idea man)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page