Development of Creative Commons licenses

["P. J. McDermott" <pjm AT nac.net>]

Forgive me if the beginning of this message sounds a bit off-topic; I do
get directly to the thread's topic by the end. :)

On 2012-12-13 19:42, P-M wrote:
> [...]
> 
> 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.

It seems to me that many people who want to resist such "strong
commercialism" are using the wrong license.  I believe that CC BY-SA is
a more suitable choice for such goals.

If Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. wants to license a photograph under the terms
of CC BY-SA for use in a greeting card, they'd have to offer to any
recipient of the card the same licensing terms for the entire card.
Similarly, to license from a musician a song under the terms of CC BY-SA
for use in an advertisement, Toyota Motor Corporation would have to
offer all viewers the same license to use the whole advertisement.  In
both cases, an Adaptation is made.

While it would be nice if these corporations did offer free and public
licenses for the use of their works, it seems unlikely that they would.
So they would be unable (unwilling) to use photographs and songs under
the CC BY-SA terms (and "strong commercialism" would be effectively
resisted).

On the other hand, local community groups and bands performing in clubs
may be less averse to complying with the terms of CC BY-SA, so they
would be largely unaffected by the licensing.  In fact, the example
band is completely unaffected, as their obligations under CC BY-NC
(assuming no monetary compensation is received – see below) and CC BY-SA
are equal as far as I'm aware.

CC BY-NC, however, would arguably forbid the use of a photograph in a
publication sold by a local community group and the use of a song by a
band that receives a portion of a cover charge for their performance.
In each case, private monetary compensation is sought.

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

Then either the -NC licenses need to be rewritten to better reflect the
goals of the "NC Commons", or they need to be renamed (as proposed or
similarly) to more accurately summarize their legal effect.

As others in this thread have noted, the -NC licenses don't say "the
Work will never be used in any manner that is primarily intended for or
directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation".
Rather, they say that the right to use the Work in such a manner is
reserved for the copyright holder(s).

If nothing else, this thread shows that something needs to be done to
either the legal text of or the names of the -NC licenses to fix the
discrepancy between the common expectations and the legal effects of the
licenses.  Such confusion may at least in part explain the relative
popularity of the -NC licenses considering their potentially harmful and
vaguely defined effects.

Ideally, I'd like to see the deprecation of the -NC licenses in favor of
CC BY-SA (more suitable for an "NC Commons" as described above).  But a
renaming is at least a step in the right direction in my opinion.

-- 
P. J. McDermott                                        (_/@\_)    ,--.
http://www.pehjota.net/                           o    < o o >   / oo \
http://www.pehjota.net/contact.html                 o   \ `-/    | <> |.
                                                o o o    "~v    /_\--/_/