Development of Creative Commons licenses

[P-M <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk>]

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.