Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

Hay (Husky)
This might interest some of you:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial

This is the long-awaited study on a large survey on how people
interpret the terms "non-commercial" and "commercial", like in the
NC-licenses from Creative Commons. Pretty interesting stuff for people
interested in free culture in general, although with its 255 pages
this might be something that you would rather like to skim through
instead of fully read :)

For a summary of the findings read:
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127

-- Hay

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

Mike DuPont
This brings up my favorite subject:
Is working on Free software or Wikipedia defined as Commercial non profit work?

It is my opinion that we should be careful of people who are using
restricted software
for contributions because it might be in violation of some licenses.

commercial business activities, nonprofit business activities, or
revenue-generating business activities, that is what free software,
and wikipedia is, in my opinion.

please comment, I am not a lawyer and would like your opinion.

Sources:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/937676

The "non-commercial use" text is based on the Microsoft Software
License Terms for Office Home and Student 2007 products.

In the Microsoft Software License Terms, the "non-commercial use" text
identifies the use of the product. You may install one licensed copy
of the software on three devices in your household. The software is
not licensed for any commercial business activities, nonprofit
business activities, or revenue-generating business activities.


http://www.cmu.edu/computing/software/license-office/licenses/msca.html
Restrictions: Use for academic, non-commercial purposes only


http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx#EEB
PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.
Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and
non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit,
display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works
from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or
services obtained from the Services.

And here :


On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Hay (Husky) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This might interest some of you:
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial
>
> This is the long-awaited study on a large survey on how people
> interpret the terms "non-commercial" and "commercial", like in the
> NC-licenses from Creative Commons. Pretty interesting stuff for people
> interested in free culture in general, although with its 255 pages
> this might be something that you would rather like to skim through
> instead of fully read :)
>
> For a summary of the findings read:
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127
>
> -- Hay
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

Nikola Smolenski
[hidden email] wrote:
> It is my opinion that we should be careful of people who are using
> restricted software
> for contributions because it might be in violation of some licenses.

No, we should not. Whatever licenses they are violating, we are not a
party to these licenses and we are not violating them.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

Hay (Husky)
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [hidden email] wrote:
>> It is my opinion that we should be careful of people who are using
>> restricted software
>> for contributions because it might be in violation of some licenses.
>
> No, we should not. Whatever licenses they are violating, we are not a
> party to these licenses and we are not violating them.
Indeed.

Note that this study is about something completely different, namely
reuse of NC-licensed CC works and when something like that is
'commercial' or not.

-- Hay

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Hay (Husky)
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Hay (Husky) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> with its 255 pages
> this might be something that you would rather like to skim through
> instead of fully read :)


Anything to disrupt my view that the NC licenses suck because it's unclear
what they mean?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

Andrew Gray-3
2009/9/15 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Hay (Husky) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> with its 255 pages
>> this might be something that you would rather like to skim through
>> instead of fully read :)
>
> Anything to disrupt my view that the NC licenses suck because it's unclear
> what they mean?

Not a view I disagree with, personally!

One interesting example the blog post brings up - a
nonprofit-with-ads, paying for hosting costs that way, is that
commercial? 60% of creators say it is non-commercial, whilst *70%* of
reusers think so - which really does begin to sound like a recipe for
unintentionally annoying a lot of people releasing material under the
license.

I wonder, perhaps, if the best thing the next generation of the -nc-
licenses could include would be a long list of worked examples...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

Mike Linksvayer-2
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2009/9/15 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Hay (Husky) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> with its 255 pages
>>> this might be something that you would rather like to skim through
>>> instead of fully read :)
>>
>> Anything to disrupt my view that the NC licenses suck because it's unclear
>> what they mean?

Probably not.

> Not a view I disagree with, personally!
>
> One interesting example the blog post brings up - a
> nonprofit-with-ads, paying for hosting costs that way, is that
> commercial? 60% of creators say it is non-commercial, whilst *70%* of
> reusers think so - which really does begin to sound like a recipe for
> unintentionally annoying a lot of people releasing material under the
> license.

It's not that bad. What you see is a scale where 1=noncommercial and
100=commercial, and creators rated the case you mention 59.2 on that
scale, users 71.7 -- so creators see that case as less commercial than
users, which is ideal if fewer disputes are a good outcome (and as far
as I know there aren't many).

Of course one of the ways disputes are avoided is that users just
avoid NC licensed content, as Wikimedia projects do. Kudos.

Mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

Anthony-73
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Mike Linksvayer <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > One interesting example the blog post brings up - a
> > nonprofit-with-ads, paying for hosting costs that way, is that
> > commercial? 60% of creators say it is non-commercial, whilst *70%* of
> > reusers think so - which really does begin to sound like a recipe for
> > unintentionally annoying a lot of people releasing material under the
> > license.
>
> It's not that bad. What you see is a scale where 1=noncommercial and
> 100=commercial, and creators rated the case you mention 59.2 on that
> scale, users 71.7 -- so creators see that case as less commercial than
> users, which is ideal if fewer disputes are a good outcome (and as far
> as I know there aren't many).
>

Fewer disputes are not a good outcome if it means the content isn't used in
ways which creators and users both want it to be used.  The ideal situation
would be one in which creators and users all rank any given situation as
either 0 or 100.

Of course one of the ways disputes are avoided is that users just
> avoid NC licensed content, as Wikimedia projects do. Kudos.
>

True, although the Wikimedia projects do so for a different reason than the
fact that the term "noncommercial" is undefinable.  Wikipedia was set up
intentionally with the purpose of allowing commercial use.  In fact, it was
set up by a for-profit with the intention of making money.

CC doesn't want to drop the NC licenses because they're popular.  But
they're popular because they offer something impossible to obtain.  For a
little thought experiment, imagine I wanted to create a CC-GOOD license,
where use was allowed for anyone doing something good, and wasn't allowed
for anyone doing something evil.  It'd be an incredibly popular license if I
could convince people that it does what it claims to do, but it'd be
impossible to construct such a license which actually does that.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

Andrew Gray-3
In reply to this post by Mike Linksvayer-2
2009/9/15 Mike Linksvayer <[hidden email]>:

> It's not that bad. What you see is a scale where 1=noncommercial and
> 100=commercial, and creators rated the case you mention 59.2 on that
> scale, users 71.7 -- so creators see that case as less commercial than
> users, which is ideal if fewer disputes are a good outcome (and as far
> as I know there aren't many).

You are entirely correct, and I seem to have thoroughly misread that section!

> Of course one of the ways disputes are avoided is that users just
> avoid NC licensed content, as Wikimedia projects do. Kudos.

Yeah. Not the most desired outcome for the creator, though.

One of the benefits of CC is to encourage worry-free distribution by
helping creators be entirely up-front about what they're happy to have
happen with their material, but this sort of ambiguity seems to bring
us full circle.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

Hay (Husky)
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yeah. Not the most desired outcome for the creator, though.
>
> One of the benefits of CC is to encourage worry-free distribution by
> helping creators be entirely up-front about what they're happy to have
> happen with their material, but this sort of ambiguity seems to bring
> us full circle.

Just some thoughts.

The main problem with NC-licenses is the ambiguity of the term
'non-commercial' when reusing content. This research has shown that
the interpretation of 'NC' is pretty much the same with both users and
creators, even around the globe. However, that doesn't really resolve
the issue of ambiguity, as re-stating the definition in the license
itself, or creating more licenses has been shown in this report to be
a bad idea.

That isn't as big a problem for individual creators though. Reuse of
media will probably stay within the 'personal use' or 'redistribute'
limits, and the NC license mostly touches upon all cases where people
might make money from the content in a commercial way. Modifications
to the original media are not very common.

This isn't the case however with a project like Wikipedia, where mass
collaboration is the _basis_ of the medium and it is really inherent
to creating content. Any ambiguity on how 'non-commercial' should be
interpreted is likely to much more of a problem than with works
created by an individual.

That's why it's so important, for projects like ours, to use a license
such as BY-SA that it usable by anyone, at anytime, for any purpose
without that ambiguity.

-- Hay

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

wiki-lists
Hay (Husky) wrote:
>
> That's why it's so important, for projects like ours, to use a
> license such as BY-SA that it usable by anyone, at anytime, for any
> purpose without that ambiguity.
>

Except that it is not, the SA license ghettoizes the work just as an NC
licenses does. The only difference is that they build different walls.

You can't combine a CC-BY work with a CC-BY-SA work without either
imposing a SA limitation on the CC-BY work, or removing the SA
limitation on the CC-BY-SA work. Which is no different to that of
someone combining CC-BY-NC-SA license with a CC-BY-SA license.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:19 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You can't combine a CC-BY work with a CC-BY-SA work without either
> imposing a SA limitation on the CC-BY work,

Which anyone can do when combining CC-By and CC-By-SA works by others.

(If you don't want people adding random limitations to your works;
don't use CC-By)

> or removing the SA
> limitation on the CC-BY-SA work.

Which only the copyright holder(s) of the BY-SA work can do.

> Which is no different to that of
> someone combining CC-BY-NC-SA license with a CC-BY-SA license.

Not so, see above. I can't combine the NC-SA and SA works of third
parties without negotiating alternative license terms; the licenses
are mutually incompatible.

The limitation of BY-SA keeps the work and it's derivatives freely
licensed. True— it's a limitation, but it's one that merely
contravenes some of frequently anti-cooperative aspect of copyright
protection.

You can look at SA works as existing in a parallel copyright universe
where restrictive copyright controls do not exist. This is
categorically different from the (often vague) nature of use
restrictions connected with non-commercial licensing.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l