Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Parker Higgins <parkerhiggins AT gmail.com>]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:57 PM, P-M <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

You see, I and perhaps Heather will agree with me here, using the NC
license doesn't mean that we want to curtail every atom of commercial
reuse. For example earlier this year I agreed to the use of images to
make an information leaflet which will be charged for to cover costs
etc, they may make a few pennies, commercial - who cares. A book on
wildlife in a local park, profits to clean up the river, again
commercial - so what. Someone using images in presentations and talks to
local societies and groups for which they get a lecture fee - on balance
shrug. All of these activities are of minor commercial interest. OTOH a
use where the images are being used to sell kids clothes and toys has
however moved into a different category of commercialism. 

So the NC license allows us to say NO to commercial use unless you run
it past us first.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but yes that's how -NC works, and how it would continue to work if it were renamed to the more accurate -CRR.

The point is, it's not the license name that's forcing you to choose between reserving or granting commercial rights: it's the way copyright works. You're given the commercial rights whether you like it or not. If you're not granting them to others, you're reserving them for yourself, but you can't just make them go away.

Thanks,

Parker

--
parker higgins
san francisco, ca

http://parkerhiggins.net

gmail / gchat: parkerhiggins AT gmail.com
twitter / identi.ca: @xor

please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a proprietary platform