Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Andrew Rens <andrewrens AT gmail.com>]

On 8 May 2012 12:46, Heather Morrison <hgmorris AT sfu.ca> wrote:

As a reminder, proposals for NC 4.0 can be found on the wiki. It might be helpful to move discussion forward to refer to the proposals on the wiki, or to create new ones for discussion.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial

My proposal to clarify noncommercial addresses a number of the questions coming up in discussion in recent days (from my viewpoint). Does anyone have specific feedback on this proposal?

There is a trend for the Open Education Community to use CC By for open educational resources. For example Connexions uses CC By. Siyavula, the most successful open school textbook project in the world uses CC By.

The explicit reference to education in a future non-commercial license would divert some licensors from using CC By resulting in fewer free culture licensed works.

NC Proposal No. 12 (Heather Morrison): NC Proposal No.12 Define NC to specifically allow educational uses. "(f) NonCommercial means not intended for re-sale or re-use of the Licensed Work for private monetary compensation (for example, as a means to attract advertising revenue). For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Work by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange. For the avoidance of doubt, educational use - teaching and learning - is Noncommercial, and permitted by this Public License, while including the content in a package intended for sale to educational institutions for profit is Commercial, and prohibited by this Public License.

This would replace the problem of defining non commercial with the problem of defining educational use or 'teaching and learning'.

Is that either teaching or learning, or must both teaching and learning take place?
Is that intended to be auto-dicactic use?

Is use by British American Tobacco for in house training teaching and learning?
 Is use by Kaplan.com teaching and learning?
Is use by  Pearson incorporates the work into a textbook that it sells is that still educational use?
What if Harvard incorporates the work into a cousepack that it sells to its students, is that teaching and learning?
And if Harvard sells the coursepack to all comers is that taching and learning?
If I use the work on my blog that also earns ad revenue and I deem my blog to a teaching blog then is that permitted?


Under NC #8 someone commented: "In educational use, I often want to have CC-NC licensed materials printed through print-on-demand companies. It is unclear whether this is commercial or not, since the printing company is certainly making a profit."

It us unclear whether "including the content in a package intended for sale to educational institutions for profit is Commercial" permits use of print on demand or not.

This proposal does however avoid license proliferation.
 

Web-based or other discovery services that rely on advertising revenue, such as search engines, may use advertising IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR SERVICES in connecting searchers to this content; this does not constitute commercial use of the content. Advertising that constitutes exploitation of the content for commercial purposes, such as advertising inserted into a derivative, advertising that readers are forced to watch before viewing the content, creating the impression of sponsorship, or advertising that implies that the creator endorses the advertised product, constitutes commercial use and is prohibited by this license."

I would also like to point to NC Proposal No. 9 (Brian Carver), to: "Create a new CC license, NC-EDU, that prohibits non-commercial uses, but allows educational uses".

 

1. This will result in  license proliferation.

2. There is a trend in the OER community to use CC By licences, Connexions uses CC By and Siyavula, the most successful open school textbook project uses CC By.
If a specific education licence were created this would divert some licensors from CC By thus resulting in fewer Free Culture works.

3. An education license is likely to suffer from the same marketing problem as the development license, potential licensors thought that the license was intended for use by developing countries, rather than by anyone who wanted to allow use in a developing country. CC ultimately deprecated the development license. Licensors intent on preventing what they believe to be commercial use of their works would think that educational institutions should use the educational license.

4. This would raise the difficult issue of coherently defining education.

Both 12 and 9 address a desire for NC without impeding educational use. The main difference between the two approaches is that one creates a new license (#9), while the other clarifies the NC definition (#12).

best,

Heather Morrison



_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

-- 
Andrew Rens

ex africa semper aliquid novi (http://aliquidnovi.org)