Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:27 PM, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:29:59 -0400, Anthony <osm AT inbox.org> wrote:
>> It is my understanding that the NC licenses do not allow you to
>> distribute NC images on a page where you make money off advertising.
>
> OK, so *I* can't put an NC image on a page where *I* make money from
> advertising.

The word I used was "distribute".  You can't *distribute* an NC image
on a page where you make money from advertising.

>> This is what Facebook does.  So they can't do it based on the NC
>> license, only with the permission of the copyright holder.
>
> As I say, facebook is more like a hoster for someone else's page and
> they put up the NC image and do not make money from it.

I guess you could argue that.

That really would take the meat out of the NC license though, wouldn't it?

--

Incidentally, if I can put NC images on my facebook page, and neither
I nor facebook is violating the NC license, what about others?  Can
Zuckerberg put NC images on *his* facebook page?  What about other
large shareholders?  Small shareholders?  Employees?

I guess this is where the "primarily" part comes into play?

--

>>> Are you maintaining that a person cannot take and NC book to a printer 
>>> and pay
>>> to have 10 copies printed to give away as gifts?
>>
>> Who is making the copies?
>
> The print shop makes the copies for / at the direction of the customer
> who pays for them. The customer then takes them and gives them away as
> gifts.
>
>  If it is the printer, then the printer
>> needs permission, and NC does not give that permission.  If it's the
>> person hiring the printer, then they don't need permission.
>
> You are saying that they, the printer, don't need permission in this
> instance, right?

No, my answer is this:

>> I could
>> see it argued either way.  It probably depends on the facts of the
>> situation.


> Let's break it down further. Let's assume a DIY space where you can go
> in and rent the necessary copy / binding / etc. machines and make your
> own 10 copies of an NC book to give away to friends. Can the space not
> charge you?

That seems clearly on the side of being okay.

(You seem to agree it's an absurd distinction, though.)

>>> When someone makes a copy of an NC work and gives it to someone else, 
>>> lots of
>>> people get and income and may make a profit. It is just that the person
>>> making the copy does not get the revenue and the person getting the copy 
>>> may
>>> not pay anything in the process.
>>
>> It is my understanding that one cannot make copies of an NC work and
>> give it to someone else, if they know that someone else is going to
>> make a profit.
>
> I don't need to argue that point, just stipulate that they don't know.

I've actually still heard it argued that you aren't allowed to make
copies, and give them away, if anyone downstream makes a profit off
that copy.  I doubt this is true, however.

>>  That would mean that their copying was "directed
>> toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation".
>>
>> But maybe I'm wrong about this.  This is what I was told when I
>> questioned whether or not it was okay for me to make 1000 copies of an
>> NC work, and give them to a friend, who then sold them.
>
> The one that first through me for a loop with NC was being told that a
> corporation could never make copies of an NC work because everything
> they ever do is by definition commercial.

Unless the corporation is a non-profit corporation, there is an
argument for this.

Of course, there's that "primarily" part.  And also the "advantage"
part.  I'm not sure exactly what "commercial advantage" is.