Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!
Editing The non-commercial provision obfuscates intent
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The purpose of a general public license is to establish agreement between two parties, with enough clarity that adjudicating any later disagreements is trivial. The "non-commercial" provision (NC) available with the Creative Commons suite of licenses, however, introduces uncertainty into an otherwise straightforward agreement. The non-commercial provision | The purpose of a general public license is to establish agreement between two parties, with enough clarity that adjudicating any later disagreements is trivial. The "non-commercial" provision (NC) available with the Creative Commons suite of licenses, however, introduces uncertainty into an otherwise straightforward agreement. The non-commercial provision should be avoided on that basis alone. | ||
== The general purpose of a general license == | == The general purpose of a general license == | ||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* A for-profit company uses a song as the hold music on its telephone system (and does not charge customers for using its phone service) | * A for-profit company uses a song as the hold music on its telephone system (and does not charge customers for using its phone service) | ||
Are such uses commercial or non-commercial? Reasonable people could disagree; the only way to figure it out is a conversation between the copyright holder and the person who wants to reuse the work. But now, we're back at the beginning; the | Are such uses commercial or non-commercial? Reasonable people could disagree; the only way to figure it out is a conversation between the copyright holder and the person who wants to reuse the work. But now, we're back at the beginning; the purpose of using a general public license to begin with, in avoiding the need for one-on-one consultation, is undermined. | ||
== The role of Creative Commons == | == The role of Creative Commons == | ||
Creative Commons, the organization, has paid attention to this issue over the years. In 2009 they published the results of a study which sought to determine the public's understanding of the term "non-commercial." [https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial] The [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode license text itself] attempts to bring some clarity, with the clause "NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation." | Creative Commons, the organization, has paid attention to this issue over the years. In 2009 they published the results of a study which sought to determine the public's understanding of the term "non-commercial." [https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial] The [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode license text itself] attempts to bring some clarity, with the clause "NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation." | ||
But if the two parties initially seeking agreement need to bring in a third party (Creative Commons) to inform their contract, the situation has again become more complex, not simpler. And phrases like "primarily | But if the two parties initially seeking agreement need to bring in a third party (Creative Commons) to inform their contract, the situation has again become more complex, not simpler. And phrases like "primarily intented" may require yet another party -- a court of law -- to weigh in before true understanding is reached. | ||
== Conclusion == | == Conclusion == | ||
A general public license is useful only insofar as it captures concepts well enough to establish clear agreement between parties. If a copyright holder wants to restrict reuse based on the purpose, they are choosing to enter an area that is necessarily complex, and fraught with potential misunderstandings. A copyright holder is not well served by a general public license that only ''seems'' to express their intent, but that loses its clarity as soon as its provisions are held up to scrutiny. | A general public license is useful only insofar as it captures concepts well enough to establish clear agreement between parties. If a copyright holder wants to restrict reuse based on the purpose, they are choosing to enter an area that is necessarily complex, and fraught with potential misunderstandings. A copyright holder is not well served by a general public license that only ''seems'' to express their intent, but that loses its clarity as soon as its provisions are held up to scrutiny. Such a copyright holder would do better to write their own text, ensuring that it closely adheres to their values and interests, rather than adopt a general public license that is not fit for purpose. | ||