Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] [cc-community] Commercial Rights Reserved

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: P-M <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] [cc-community] Commercial Rights Reserved
  • Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:42:25 +0000

On 13/12/2012 18:53, Parker Higgins wrote:



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



The point that is being made is that the work is released into a non-commercial commons. A commons where people aren't primarily exploiting the work of others for private gain. Commercial Rights Reserved is misleading as in many cases it is not weak commercialism that is being resisted but strong commercialism. So the use of a photo by a local community group in a publication from which they hope to raise a few quid is NOT the same as the use of the image by WALMART made into posters or greetings cards. Similarly a band playing a song in a club from which they get a cut of the door money is not the same as Toyota using the song in an advertisement.


Traditionally, we knew personally knew the reusers, they were part of our circle of acquaintances, and there was no problem, as every one knew what the rules were, what was acceptable and what was not. Now it is possible for people to access content and reuse it across continents, where there is no connection between the creator and reuser. The NC license, however, gives an indication as to what the rules are, what is acceptable and what is not. It might not be precise, it might be a bit woolly in places and it may be a bit vague at times, but we have the ability to clear up such issues pretty quickly, and in doing so create new connections.


Commercial Rights is not what the NC Commons is about at all.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page