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!

Talk:Licenses/NC: Difference between revisions

From Definition of Free Cultural Works
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Compilations ==
'''[[Talk:Licenses/NC/Archive 1|Archive 1 (September 2005 – April 2012)]]'''


I quite agree with your conclusions. I'm trying to put together a CD with free music to be sold at a nominal fee in order to cover production, and I can't include CC-NC material on this. Particulaly with music, most of it is NC. These musicians simply do not get distributed.
----


One way to get around this sort of situation would be another CC module, let's call it NP, for non-profit.
== The article does contradict itself ==
The part of article says: "The use of an -NC license is very rarely justifiable on economic or ideological grounds. It excludes many people, from free content communities to small scale commercial users, while the decision to give away your work for free already eliminates most large scale commercial uses."


I have tried to make CC people aware of these problems, but there has been no response so far.
On the other hand, another part of article explains, how wikipedia content is used in Google search results. As I see it, there is no way to prevent wikipedia content from beeing comercially used by a large scale commercial entity, like Google. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Consequently, if any entity, that is smaller, than wikipedia, i.e. any blogger decide to eliminate NC from their licence, there is no way, they can stop corporate entities, like Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc, etc from using their work. Wikipedia content in Google search results is a proof - the licence simply allows it. So this part of article is very misleading (and as I said before, contradicts with other parts of the article).


Theo Schmidt
: The phrase "the decision to give away your work for free already eliminates most large scale commercial uses." is not great. It's too strong. The point is not that it eliminates large-scale commercial uses, merely that it eliminates the pay-for-access model of many large-scale publishers (especially if you use a copyleft license like CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia can be used by large commercial entities, and that's fine. But the CC-BY-SA license blocks companies from using the resources in a ''proprietary'' business model based on publishing.
: If Google were to sell downloads of Wikimedia images, it would be legal but impractical, since all the images are available anyway. Other business uses are fine, including Google using these same images in other ways in their business — as long as any derivatices stay free under the same license.
: --[[User:Wolftune|Wolftune]] ([[User talk:Wolftune|talk]]) 17:41, 28 July 2014 (EDT)


: I would suggest lobbying for the option suggested at the bottom of the article, i.e. to raise awareness of the consequences of NC licenses on the Creative Commons license selection screen. An NP license would help in your specific case, but it would still inherit many of the problems described in the article. Tautologically speaking, the more permissive the license is, the less friction there will be.--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 11:36, 25 September 2005 (CEST)
== Missing references to court cases? ==


=== SA's Reach ===
Sorry if I overlooked them, but the page doesn't seem to mention these cases where non-commercial is interpreted very specifically:
 
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/2002Madeyedit.html NC is for amusement, idle curiosity, or philosophical inquiry]
"The Creative Commons "Share-Alike" licenses require any work derived from your own to be made available as free content, as a whole. (The licenses without a share-alike clause only guarantee that the part of the work created by you remains free.) Any company trying to exploit your work will have to make their "added value" available for free to everyone. Seen like this, the "risk" of exploitation turns into a potentially powerful benefit."
* [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says-creative-commons-non-commercial-licenses-must-be-purely-personal-use.shtml NC is for purely personal use]
 
I think SA as presently constituted by CC does not reach this far in fact. On a derivative, OK, but the problems start with collections.
 
I have a glimmer of hope that there might be an attempt to remedy this situation in the "near?" future.
 
all the best,
 
drew
 
== Collecting societies ==
 
Excellent overview, Erik
 
I totally agree there needs to be more education about NC issues. The current FAQ from Creative Commons could benefit from your argument, especially point 2.4 from the current FAQ (http://creativecommons.org/faq). As far as problems of mixing free (software) with non-free (nc-cc documentation) goes, point 1.19 should be expanded too.
 
You did not mention the issues with Collecting Societies: It is deemed necessary to use an NC licence to collect statutory or other royalties (See: http://creativecommons.org/faq point 1.9 - 1.11). Although it must be added that this issue is largely moot because hardly any Collecting Societies recognize CC licensed works, but this might change in the future.
 
Patrick Peiffer, cc-lu www.luxcommons.lu
 
: Interesting point. I'm increasingly seeing a need to distinguish arguments by the type and content of media. Don't get me wrong: I don't think NC should be used at all. But arguing this in the context of music is quite a bit different from the context of science and education (and probably more difficult). With regard to collecting societies, they are a dated and frequently unfair model of distributing royalties; using an NC license to benefit from that system is rather unoriginal.
 
: I find it much more exciting to let new revenue and compensation models evolve around truly free content. One thing which I think could help with that is additional metadata that can be used to reward artists. A global, unique identifier would probably make sense for that. E-mail addresses seem like a natural choice, but are unfortunatley prone to spam; perhaps a registry is needed. What I have in mind is that, when you broadcast a song by an artist whose work is under CC-BY, you might be required to say: "This was ''The Lonely Tentacles'', Commons ID 84029." This ID could then in turn be used to make a quick donation if you like the artist's work, or to support their ongoing work.--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 19:49, 28 September 2005 (CEST)
 
== French articles ==
 
Hi Erik,
 
We have a bunch of articles in French about Creative Commons on our Web site Libroscope, notably:
* http://www.libroscope.org/Non-commercial-est-ce-cela-qui ("Non-commercial: is it important in so-called free licenses?") addresses the nocivity of NC licenses under the "social entrepreneur" POV
* http://www.libroscope.org/Des-contenus-libres-pour-les ("Free contents for free software") explains why free software needs free contents, and why non-commercial licenses (or licenses prohibiting derivative works) are not applicable for contents bundled with free software; thus creating a segregation between the world of software and other contents
 
I didn't want to add these links myself to the article but, if you think it is useful, you may add them.
(most of our articles are published under the Free Art License by the way, which is a very clear free and copyleft license for works of art, literature... http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html)
 
Regards
 
Antoine (antoine //at// pitrou **dot** net)
 
: Hello Antoine,
 
: thanks for the links. I added them to [[Licenses/NC/fr]]; it would be cool if a French translation could eventually be written there as well.--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 17:57, 28 September 2005 (CEST)
 
== What is commercial use? ==
 
A few questions to ponder : http://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_use_cases
 
: Interesting. It would be nice to have more definitive answers, though. ;-) Some of the listed scenarios are also fairly obvious. A version trimmed down to borderline examples with legal commentary would be helpful.--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 21:15, 29 September 2005 (CEST)
 
=== Is Commercial Use Possible Anyway? ===
"The moment you choose any Creative Commons license, you choose to give away your work. Any market built around content which is available for free must either rely on goodwill or ignorance."
 
You may find it difficult to believe, but this is demonstrably false.
For comparison, try this:
"The moment you choose to use the GPL, you choose to give away your work. Any market built around software which restores freedom to its purchasers must either rely on goodwill or ignorance."
 
Restoring liberty (otherwise suspended by copyright and patent) to purchasers of your work does not prevent you selling your work to them, nor does it rely upon their goodwill or ignorance.
[[User:CrosbieFitch|CrosbieFitch]] 10:00, 10 August 2007 (CEST)
 
==What about NC and SA together?==
 
So it seems to me that if you have both the Non Commercial and Share Alike in your license you might be covered. Eg. I publish a song under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5 . Anyone wanting to use my song would have to either adopt my license, not use it or arrange for a commercial license with me. No?
 
Seems to me this would help promote the expansion of CC and protect me from folks making a buck off my work without compensation... no?
 
--dasspunk
 
: No, BY-NC-SA is ''worse'' than simple BY-NC. All the disadvantages of NC licenses outlined in this article apply to BY-NC-SA as well, with the additional factor that any derivative work must be NC-licensed as well. That is, I'm not even allowed to charge for my own improvements of the work, or let anyone else sell it, as long as I'm building on your BY-NC-SA work to begin with. BY-NC-SA does ''not'' mean that I'm allowed to make commercial use if I make my own contributions freely available, if this is what you thought.--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 21:47, 15 October 2005 (CEST)
 
 
 
== Permitted to lead?? ==
 
What an odd closing remark. Permitted by whom? Apologists for capital? Capitalists (like Lessig) use a disingenuous call for "unity" to subvert the movement against intellectual property. Wannabe fence-menders fall for it every time. They ought to study the consequences of Dmitroff's "United Front" and how "unity" with liberal trade unions destroyed the socialist labour movement. Some of us are not interested in fixing IP for the interests of Property, some of see the fight against IP as a part of the fight against property itself. It is very telling then, that socialists should not be ''permitted'' to lead. Is unity more important than justice? --[[User:212.91.238.215|212.91.238.215]] 12:20, 16 February 2007 (CET) (Dmytri Kleiner dk@telekommunisten.net, http://www.telekommunisten.net)
 
: I'm not interested in a single "united front" unless a complete parity of values can indeed be achieved. I am interested in identifying commonalities. That includes, for example, shorter copyright terms. I have advocated the abolition of copyright and patent law for nearly a decade; that does not mean that I would not support smaller reform steps (abolishing software patents; reducing copyright terms etc.). For the record, I do not believe that ''copyleft'' should exist, either, yet I am happy to accept it as an in-between step. It is completely possible to hold on to absolute goals, and to approach them in small steps.
 
: There are also ideas beyond socialism and capitalism. For example, one can have an economy where entities above a certain impact factor are legally required to act towards the public interest, rather than towards profit. And one can try to work towards such an economy by building non-profit organizations that assume the roles of for-profits in the information age. We have libre knowledge, libre software -- we need libre art, libre media, and libre services.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:39, 19 February 2007 (CET)
 
:: "There are also ideas beyond socialism and capitalism." is a phrase often used by those who have not bothered to try and understand either. I wonder if those who do not want to know the basics of political economy should be "permitted to lead" a definition of freedom while ignoring the political, economic and philosophical history of the struggle for freedom? I must admit, I am skeptical. The issue is property itself, not just immaterial "property." You say copyleft is too much, I say copyleft is not enough. Are you interested in a socialist point of view? Or, is my anti-capitalist point of view, which is fundamentally incompatible with pro-capitalists like Lessig, the reason critics of counter productive initiatives like creative-commons "should not be permitted to lead?" --[[User:212.91.238.27|212.91.238.27]] 11:05, 22 March 2007 (CET)  (Dmytri Kleiner dk@telekommunisten.net, http://www.telekommunisten.net)
 
::: Marxist entryists destroy movements, they don't lead them. You say copyleft is not enough, but the doctrinaire discriminatory licensing that you propose as a replacement ignores the political, economic and philosophical history of the struggle for freedom and can never achieve a fraction of what copyleft already has. As for whether you should be "permitted to lead", I don't believe anyone is asking you to.  And I thought you didn't like ad Hominem, so why are you using it so freely?  --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 13:26, 10 August 2007 (CEST)
 
:::: "Marxist entryist?," "Nobody is asking you to lead?" "Using ad hominem freely" oh boy. You aren't even trying to understand what is being said.  "Entryism," as far as I know is a Trotskyist term that described the tactic of Socialists entering Liberal organisations to radicalise them. This does not apply here in the slightest, for one I have been involved in free culture and free software for over ten years, the anticopyright movement in art has always been radical (i.e. The Situatist Internationl, Neoism, Dada, etc), it is liberal lawyers like Lessig and co who are the entryists. Copyleft has achieved a lot in software development, yes, but not in art, and most likely never will, because the fact is the modes of production are very different. You want to ignore this by designating anything that uses a political economic analysis as being "doctrinaire." Finally, this is not about me being permitted to lead, I am not even part of the project, this is about the statement made by the projects organizers which I object to, statements your little tantrum has not addressed. Feel free to delete anything you consider an ad hominem. BTW, I do not propose a replacement for software development, I use and endorse the GPL, which is not widely used for art. My concerns with copyleft are specifically for cultural production, which is not a common input to production as software is and thus has different economics. --[[User:212.91.232.219|212.91.232.219]] 03:38, 18 September 2007 (CEST) (Dmytri Kleiner dk@telekommunisten.net, http://www.telekommunisten.net)
 
::::: To address your original comment, then; socialism was not mentioned. You had to introduce it rhetorically. What was identified as problematic was not a particular ideology, but the personal qualities of irrational animosity on the part of dogmatic ideologues. That you (mis)identify these qualities with socialism is your problem, not socialism's. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 16:03, 20 September 2007 (CEST)
 
:::::: Nonsense, it is because "important (essential!) common causes are all too easily set aside" that any argument that disputes a common cause with supports of intellectual property and capitalism is dismissed as "Ideology become dogma" and "irrational animosity." In other words the "Common Cause" is taken as gospel, an ideological "united front" dogma, and any who argue that there can be no common cause with those who support property privilege face "irrational animosity" as your reactions to my arguments ("doctrinaire discriminatory licensing") proves quite clearly. You don't bother addressing or even trying to understand the arguments, you simple attack me personally as doctrinaire, ideological, dogmatic, and take it upon yourself to tell me what "my problem" is, etc. Once again, I wonder if those who do not want to know the basics of political economy should be "permitted to lead" a definition of freedom while ignoring the political, economic and philosophical history of the struggle for freedom? I must admit, I remain skeptical. --[[User:212.91.232.203|212.91.232.203]] 02:39, 27 September 2007 (CEST) (Dmytri Kleiner dk@telekommunisten.net, http://www.telekommunisten.net)
 
==Very one-sided==
One major issue is that a for-profit allowable license dramatically reduces the number of images one can use, as well as bars from use many thousands of images from, for example, the Australian and UK governments, and places fair-use into serious question. This essay mentions the German WP and the few (1000) images provided by the commercial company, but fails to mention that the price of that commercial use was to delete and bar from use '''all''' fair use images on the Project. There are always trade-offs, and a stubborn insistence on for-profit allowable is always traded off in quality in one way or another. ''For an encyclopedia'', it is purely stupid to trade-off a substantial amount of quality for a radical version of "free". [[User:72.153.142.242|72.153.142.242]] 06:19, 17 February 2007 (CET)
 
: The German Wikipedia DVD had ''nothing whatsoever'' to do with the decision not to allow fair use on the project. I know, because I was intimately involved in that process (and argued in favor of fair use -- it was pretty close).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 07:14, 17 February 2007 (CET)
 
::That particular DVD is irrelevant. While perhaps not proximal to the decision, such use has ''everything'' to do with the removal of fair use images and the inevitable degradation of quality. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Kat_Walsh%27s_statement This by Kat Walsh], toward the bottom of the page on this date, has a particularly enlightening and clarifying statement from Walsh: ""Free' ''is'' a higher priority than 'good'." To even be so much as close to okay with that ''in an encyclopedia'' is little other than demagoguery over "free".  [[User:70.149.84.178|70.149.84.178]] 22:36, 17 February 2007 (CET)
 
::: Our draft licensing policy explicitly states that there has to be equivalent information content. Now, if the free photo of Britney Spears shows her with her face slightly turned, or her eyes slightly closed; if the free illustration of the tree of life is slightly amateurish-looking, then I fail to see how that hurts our readers -- in fact, it helps them, since they can reuse that material without worrying about the consequences. ''Fair use on Wikipedia will not go away'', but it is a clearly separate domain from free content, with very different rules.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:24, 19 February 2007 (CET)
 
==Why NC is exceedingly better for an encyclopedia ==
 
'''"Free" vs. "For non-profit educational purposes" - conceptually and grants.''' "For non-profit educational purposes" is ''koine'' while "free" is jargon. It is much easier to approach an expert to donate his or her time for a few articles strictly "for non-profit educational purposes".  Introduce "free" and one frequently introduces a can of worms requiring the hearer to be indoctrinated, with far from certain results even at that. More often than not, a polite "no thank you e-mail" will be on it way. On the same token, certain grant funding may only be acquired "for non-profit educational purposes". This is concrete among presently known entities, and it is foregone at the expense of "free" usage by unknown future entities, i.e., a for-profit allowable license means we give up the ability to apply for certain currently available grants in favor of someone's future theoretical ability to use material commercially.  Both conceptually and for grants, these are potentially serious and very poor trade-offs.
 
'''"Free" requires a trade-off with overall encyclopedia "quality" by reason of more restrictive usage of images.''' There seems two issues here:
 
1) More restrictive usage of fair use images - A plain reading of the four prongs in U.S. fair use law seems to allow greater latitude for fair use when "the purpose and character of the use" "is for nonprofit educational purposes" over and against "whether such use is of commercial nature". I imagine this is similar internationally. While it could be argued that WP does not need, for example, a photo of Ted Koppel released in his ABC promotional packet (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Koppelpress.jpg ), anything less degrades overall quality. Now multiply that degradation to tens of thousands of articles.
 
2) Restriction on images under terms that specify non-commercial use only, no-derivatives only, or by permission only - this goes back to "'Free' vs. 'For non-profit educational purposes' - conceptually".  The more restrictions we allow, the easier it is to obtain quality images.  On the other hand, if one asks for an image (and to translate "free") "that anyone anywhere can use for any for-profit purpose" - expect the "no-thank you" letter much more often than not. This is regarding more than just private entities. I understand that vast banks of historical images held by the Australian government cannot be used in WP. Why?  They are "for non-profit educational purposes" only.
 
'''"Free" is an idealistic barrier in the real world of building a quality encyclopedia.'''  My overall impression of the whole "free" debate is that it is primarily heralded by a minority of often demagogic persons (this article is a good example thereof) with roots in the "Free" vs. Windows debate. They are bent on changing the world to operate by their preferred model. It is simply unrealistic - and very far from certain, besides - to wait around for the vast majority of the world to change to that model while in the meantime expecting to build a quality encyclopedia in a world that vastly does not operate that way.  WP's "eventualism" may be willing to wait 150 years for the world to change (it still probably will not); they may be willing to create a WP "paparazzi of editors" willing to to take "free" images (often incognito) that still remain problematic.  Yet this is only because of an ideologic adherence to "free" that places "free" above ''quality''. Without CC-by-nc, the quality components to build a quality encyclopedia become increasingly available - people, materials, and monies - become more out of reach.  In sum, the trade-offs in the real world that come by allowing commercial usage are simply far too costly.
 
Please reference Kat Walsh's statement, "free" is a higher priority than "good", at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Kat_Walsh%27s_statement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Kat_Walsh%27s_statement#Response
 
That is simply an idiotic bind WP placed itself within, and one that cries out for remediation that WP seems unwilling to take. It would be a very different matter if we actually ''were'' talking about a piece of software instead of what is ''supposed to be'' an encyclopedia.
 
[[User:72.144.223.202|72.144.223.202]] 01:57, 27 February 2007 (CET)
 
===Cont'd===
One day, Wikipedia attracted a retired sports reporter, a golf history buff who lived through a lot of that history.  He was very excited!
 
So he proceeded to go through biographies on some of golf's greats. He started with '''Jack Nicklaus''', a living person.
 
So he wrote a fantastic introduction to '''Jack Nicklaus''' and decided that now might be the time to place a nice photo into his work. So he did.
 
He placed in [http://www.carltonwoods.com/images/JackNicklaus.jpg a photo of Jack from his promotional pack], and then sat back and sipped some tea while he admired his great start.  But soon, something happened.
 
"Woops! Sorry. Can't use that!" the retired sports reporter was suddenly told. 
 
"Huh? Why???" he replied back.
 
"Well, because there is a 'free' photo available of Jack. See, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JackNicklaus.jpg its right here]. You gotta use a 'free' photo."
 
"But that photo is ''miserable'', surely a complete embarrassment to Jack! The most prominent feature in it is - it's his GUT! - something he lost not too long after someone snapped that photo of him without him even knowing it. And that horrible shot will show up all over the whole Internet in weeks!"
 
"Well, it already is all over the Internet through Wikipedia's mirrors and stuff. ;-) But Sorry. We have to remain 'free'."
 
"But I am ''donating'' my time and expertise here to write this article, and plan on doing scores more. I thought no was ever going to be charged to read these articles. You know, that it was ''free''."
 
"Ah! No, that is a common misunderstanding. We mean 'free' as in ''libre'', not 'free' as in ''beer''."
 
"I'm confused. And I thought this was about 'free' as in ''education''."
 
"Well, one thing you can do is approach Jack to see if he will release a great photo of himself for 'free'."
 
"But this photo ''is'' free! Jack provides it in his press packet without charge. I know he'd be ''more than'' happy to have it used for educational purposes." 
 
"Yes, you are indeed confused. What you have to do is get him to release a photo ''that anyone anywhere can use for any for-profit or derivable purpose''."
 
"Are you saying I just need to get Jack to give explicit permission to use this promotional photo in Wikipedia?"
 
"No, no, no. We ''cannot'' use photos like that."
 
"Ugh! Now I think I really ''am'' confused! And look, these people have reputations to maintain, and their image is a big part of that. Real lives can be harmed by putting horrible photos of living people like that in ''an encyclopedia'' article."
 
"Well that's ''Jack's'' problem, not ours. But let me make it real plain how you and he can solve it. You have to get Jack to release a great photo of himself ''to the whole world'', one that ''anyone anywhere can sell, or change around in all sorts of ways''."
 
"Um, you're kidding, right?"
 
"No, not at all."
 
"Well what about [http://www.championsretreat.net/images/80.JPG this photo]?  That's from when Jack was just making it big, back in the early 1960s. I was planning to write a ''biography'' article of him, after all. It really has to include his golf career ''in more than just words''."
 
"Wow, nice shot! Can you get Jack to release it under a 'free' license?"
 
"Do you mean, ''Can you get Jack to release that photo to the whole world so that anyone anywhere can sell it or change it around in all sorts of ways?''"
 
"Hey, you're catching on now! And yes, that is what I mean."
 
"Are you serious? You ''really'' do gotta be kidding now, right?"
 
"No, I assure you I am not."
 
"So, let me get this straight. You want me to donate my time to write articles that anyone anywhere can then turn and use to make money. And on top of that you want me to get photos for these articles that anyone anywhere can then turn and use to make money...as well as alter and change as they deem fit?"
 
"Exactly! Look, 'free" is a ''wonderful'' goal. We need your help to change how the rest of the world operates. ''They'' should be ''like us'', not the other way around."
 
"Gosh, I am beginning to think I have wasted a lot of time here. These things you are asking me to do - they are just completely unrealistic. Not to mention the gall!"
 
"Or, you can just write the articles. They don't ''need'' photos, after all. 'Free' ''is'' more important than quality, ya know. Kat Walsh even said so."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Kat_Walsh%27s_statement#Response]
 
"Please tell me you really are kidding this time."
 
"Sorry, I am not."
 
"Well, I am afraid I must bid you good luck - you're gonna need it - and adieu."
 
[[User:72.144.241.142|72.144.241.142]] 07:39, 28 February 2007 (CET)
 
: Dear anonymous user,
 
: you seem to be very confused about a lot of things, and very angry. I don't think I'm going to be able to address your anger issues, but let me try to sort out some of the confusion.
 
: You emphasize that just ditching this whole "free" thing and accepting NC content would make things easier. It is even easier to convince people to donate material "to Wikipedia", so that nobody else can use it. Whether you like it or not, the goal of the Wikipedia project is not just to create "an encyclopedia", it is to create ''the free encyclopedia''. This is not simply dogmatic rhetoric. We want and encourage people to use our content in countless different contexts, from the classroom to the DVD version, from their open source programs (see the Wikipedia/KDE partnership) to their blogs (which may have ads on them) and their newspapers, from the local copyshop around the corner to the biggest publishers. As we improve our quality assurance methodology, more and more people will rely on and cite Wikipedia -- and we want to allow them to do so, under the terms of copyleft. Our goal is to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible, not merely to build a cool website.
 
: If you want to argue against the principles of freedom elaborated by Wikipedia and in this definition, then it's not sufficient to argue merely against any specific ''effect'' of these principles (which you constantly do, often severely misunderstanding both copyright law and the definition itself), but against the actual ''idea'' of a freely usable encyclopedia. ''We know'' that, in the short term, there are going to be quality trade-offs from insisting on free licensing. This is not news to us. You say we are unrealistic in expecting that the world will eventually adapt to our principles. Quite to the contrary, Wikipedia has only been around for only 6 years, and has already become one of the 10 largest websites in the world (in some countries, it is more popular than MSN). We're not here for 6 years, though. And while we've grown beyond the wildest expectations and our quality, even with a totally open editing process, has widely been found to be on par with traditional encyclopedias, the rest of the world is quickly catching up to the idea of free content.
 
: The open access movement in science is widely adopting the permissive Attribution License; free licenses are quickly becoming the standard for open educational resources (OER) such as [http://wikieducator.org/Main_Page WikiEducator] (which endorses this definition) and [http://cnx.org/ Connexions], and thousands of other wiki and user generated content projects use them. The people who actively propagate NC are mainly confused malcontents such as yourself, or people who have simply never heard of the reasons against it, and the alternatives. This website is here to merely speed up that change in perception, but it has quite clearly become inevitable.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:44, 28 February 2007 (CET)
 
::In light of the weaknesses exposed in your position for ''an encyclopedia'', I see that you are now resorting to ''ad hominen'' attacks, confusion that Wikipedia is representative of the real world, selective viewing of (very, very poor) evidence on Wikipedia's quality, and bald teleological assertions. [[User:70.146.32.22|70.146.32.22]] 11:39, 1 March 2007 (CET)
 
"But wait, why are you worried about other people selling the work?"
 
"Well because I thought I was giving it away for free."
 
"But if that's the case why are you worried about other people making money from it?"
 
"Well if anybody is making money from it then that person should be me."
 
"But if you sell your work to an encyclopedia company they will make far more money than you."
 
"Yes but I'll be paid fairly."
 
"You won't, but we'll let that ride. So if you wrote this article and just photocopied it then you'd give copies away for free?"
 
"Yes, I want to give it away for free. I believe in a gift economy, not freedom of speech."
 
"Would you pay the copy shop?"


"Of course."
: Nice finds! Thank you! --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:13, 5 September 2014 (EDT)


"What if they started charging you more because you're a regular customer?"
== Copyright duration ==


"I don't think they'd be that stupid, but if they did I'd just go somewhere else."
According to the article, copyright lasts until 70 years after the author's death. If the author has no right holders (like children or parents), doesn't the copyright expire sooner, like, at the end of the year? '''[[User:Calinou|Calinou]],''' 15:31, 16 September 2014 (EDT)


"So you'd pay for the copies. What if it becomes very popular and thousands of people want a copy?"
: No. Well, at least not in the countries I am familiar with. When an author dies with no heirs, his copyrights just become a property of the state as an [[w:Escheat|escheat]]. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 02:29, 17 September 2014 (EDT)


"Well I might charge just enough to cover costs."
== "freedom" ==


"I see. And what if someone couldn't get a copy from you or if you got fed up with doing all this copying?"
I support the free culture movement, for the same reasons I oppose capitalism, which I find reprehensible. That's the flaw in the argument being made here. It takes for granted that there's nothing objectionable about the appropriation of free culture by those who make their living exploiting others. Just as a fish can't comprehend a reality outside water, most of us living under capitalism accept it as a simple reality, without moral significance. For such people, "freedom" includes capitalist freedom. They recognize the problem--enclosure of culture--but the solution they offer--"freedom"--fails to identify the culprit. I don't support freedom in the abstract. My support for freedom is contextual. For instance, I don't support the freedom of pedophiles to indulge their sexual compulsions. I want that freedom annihilated, and so do you. We're both tyrannically opposed to that freedom, and rightly so. Freedom is just a word. It only raises questions, it doesn't answer them. My opposition to a concept doesn't change simply because someone attaches the word "freedom" to it, as with the "free market system," and the same goes for other manipulative buzzwords like "liberty" and "voluntary." I'd love to be able to share compatible works, but my conscience won't allow me to empower our collective enemies. I restrict their freedom, for your sake as well as my own. I'd welcome an "exploitation free" license, like dolphin free tuna, which allows commercial use for individuals and cooperatives, while restricting it specifically for capitalist firms. --[[User:Freedum|Freedum]] ([[User talk:Freedum|talk]]) 02:50, 26 September 2014 (EDT)


"People could copy the other copies. But they couldn't charge for them."
: Well, there have been licenses like that, in various forms. For instance, [http://java.dzone.com/articles/jsonorg-license-literally-says JSON.org license states “the Software shall be used for Good, not Evil”]. However, this is generally not considered “free”, as free-license definitions usually forbid such limitations, e.g. [http://opensource.org/osd.html the Open Source Definition] contains the “No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor” clause. You are obviously free to design/use any such license, but you will be incompatible with most of what is generally considered “free licenses”. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 12:03, 29 September 2014 (EDT)


"What if they need to cover costs?"
== For-profit platforms ==


"Well, OK, maybe to cover costs. But they couldn't charge more than that."
Hello, this essay should mention that works with NC licenses cannot be shared on for-profit websites (YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, App Store, etc). --[[Special:Contributions/167.57.124.9|167.57.124.9]] 11:49, 10 March 2016 (EST)


"So if there was a way of making sure that people could only ever cover costs you'd be OK with that?"
== New essay: [[The non-commercial provision obfuscates intent]] ==


"I suppose so."
Some years ago, I [https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Licenses/NC&diff=prev&oldid=13476 posted a comment here] suggesting that the main page fails (especially in the four bullet points in the intro section) to identify what I view as the single, central flaw in the NC provision. That comment has now been archived; the page has been improved since then, but not in this particular respect.


"OK so let me explain. Wikipedia will make your work available under a free licence. Anyone will be able to charge what they like for it. But because it's freely available, unless they do something pretty spectacular with it the original zero-marginal digital version or a competitor's copy will always be available instead. This will have the effect of making it difficult for people who just redistribute your work to do more than cover their costs."
Rather than try to edit this page, I've drafted a new, short essay on this topic. I think this topic stands alone effectively, and it's probably best to have it on a separate page, so it can be expressed clearly and without getting muddled with related concepts.


"I'm sorry but I don't think that will work. After all I am a straw man."
I'd welcome feedback/edits/assistance in improving the prose. If/when it's in a state that people like, I suggest it might make sense to link to it from this page. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 00:50, 9 July 2020 (CEST)
 
"Fair enough. Now what about quality. Firstly you're sure there are no Voice Of America shots of Jack Nicklaus? And none on Flickr? And none already available under a Free license elsewhere?"
 
"How would I know? I'm juts a straw man."
 
"Okay. Now failing that, possibly some of us could get together and buy the rights to a photo to place under a Free license. Or we could try to persuade Nicklaus's agent of the promotional value of a Freely available image of him. Or we could ask people to try and get a photograph of him when he's making a public appaearance. "
 
"Why would you do that?"
 
"Because freedom is important."
 
"I don't agree."
 
"You don't? OK, then I'm going to pass your work to Jack Nicklaus for censorship."
 
"That's ridiculous."
 
"It is, isn't it? But you said freedom isn't important."
 
"That's completely different."
 
"No it isn't. But I understand that you'll never understand that your own teleology is less of a benefit to society to that which you impute to Wikipedia."
 
"As I said, I am a straw man."
 
"You are. So how much money would you like for each of the speaking dates you'll be able to get on the back of the publicity that you'll be able to drive from your contribution to Wikipedia?"
 
"Don't be silly. I want to make money or make an irrational gift to society, not make money and make a gift to society. I'm a straw man."
 
--[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 14:13, 10 August 2007 (CEST)
 
== What of scraper sites? ==
See [[wikipedia:scraper site]] for a definition - the base concept is an Internet website which takes text from open-content sources, often mangles it in some manner (such as by removing original illustrations, using outdated versions or incomplete versions of text, adding pay-per-click advertising, pop-ups or banners, adding nonsense content to spam or fool search engines with irrelevant keywords) and then posts it where it is in direct competition with the original site for search-engine rank and readership. While most search engines will rank Wikipedia (as a top-ten website globally) above some of the dreadful-quality mirrors which have sprung up, one isn't so lucky if the original site is some small, independent wiki. I'm amazed that the issue isn't even addressed on this page. --[[User:66.102.80.212|66.102.80.212]] 15:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
 
== Notes ==
 
* Clarify/summarize reasons for the whole section about copyright terms, along with other time expiry mechanisms
* More examples for NC uses one may permit: student play [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2006-November/000212.html]
* Emphasize larger dissemination as key advantage of free licenses
* "Large, evil corporations" are often much more efficient at doing things than individuals due to economies of scale
* Reference [http://blog.okfn.org/2006/04/24/removing-the-nc/] [http://blog.okfn.org/2006/05/02/removing-the-nc-contd/]
* Issues of interpretation [http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/307]
* Repl. ant image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Eye-diagram.svg
--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 14 February 2007 (CET)
 
* Copyleft focuses on effects; NC tries to determine intent.
* Most NC users actually have no intention to make commercial use of their work.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 12:55, 2 April 2007 (CEST)
 
== Discussion of NC usage for encyclopedic content ==
 
http://eco101.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/why-i-use-a-non-commercial-license/<br />
Is takes "non-commercial" to mean "non-profit making" -- [[User:124.184.243.225|124.184.243.225]] 08:51, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
 
== Semi-non-commercial ==
 
Another thing is to make semi-non-commercial usage, which means: You may not sell this or make money off of this unless you follow at least one of these requirements:
# Make improvements to it (for example, additional accompaniments of music, additional chapters of a book, additional functionality of a software, etc)
# Include something else with it (for example, other books/music/software, a printed manual, an index to the contents of a package, an operating system, etc)
# Have permission from copyright holder (for example, they might want it published commercially in some way but they are unable to do it themself, but allow you to do it for them, or copyright holder demands fees, etc)
As long as you meet one of these requirements, you can charge any amount of money you want, use it for other commercial uses, and everything you would be allowed to do as if it doesn't have NC requirement. I think this is fair restriction.  --[[User:24.207.48.53|24.207.48.53]] 19:32, 20 December 2008 (EST)
 
== Is Non-commercial enforceable? ==
 
As far as I can tell NC is a vague idea. That nobody is to profit from something without the original creators permission. But this idea of profit is harder to pin down than it first seems. And if you can pin it down, can you legally enforce this requirement? If PBS used your content in a DVD which they sold and then used that income to support public television, would that be making a profit? If I rented a kiosk at the mall to sell DVDs which include your content, but then didn't sell enough to pay my rent, is that commercial anyway? What if I did make enough to pay my rent, but didn't want to? So I lowered my DVD price such that next month I would just break even? Does that mean that is NC use? Does NC require reading my mind? Given that NC has a defined meaning, will courts enforce it? If enforcement is difficult, would you hire the same legal minds that defend the RIAA and MPAA to come up with ways to enforce your will? This preceding paragraph is licensed for use under the MP license. All are free to use it in any way they wish, but they Must wear Polka dots (MP) at all times while using it. If it used in a book for sale on Amazon, then that means 24x7 you Must wear Polka dots some where on you. Otherwise you are guilty of piracy and the FBI can confiscate your computers and house...Extradite you from New Zealand...etc Sounds fair to me.
 
: That is exactly one of the biggest problem of NC licenses. See also [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial ''Defining “Noncommercial”: A Study of How the Online Population Understands “Noncommercial Use”''] by Creative Commons. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 07:24, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
 
== Considering some edits ==
Hi, just wanted to let people know that there are a couple kinds of edits I'd like to make to this page. It's an excellent collection of information; but I think the following work is in order:
* As written, the document outlines four kinds of practical consequences to using the NC provision. I believe it would be much stronger if these followed a few sentences from a more philosophical perspective. The main point to be made, I believe, is that the core purpose of having a standard license in the first place is to establish '''clarity of intent''', but that the NC provision reintroduces '''murkiness'''. It is rarely obvious precisely what collection of scenarios would or would not constitute commercial reuse. This murkiness immediately undercuts the objective of establishing clarity, so it makes sense to ask: why not just retain full copyright, if reusers are going to have to come to you for an interpretation?
* As a practical document, I think this is rather unwieldy. It is very thorough, and that thoroughness is needed. However, I think a more "brochure-like" document that can be skimmed and absorbed in a few minutes would be tremendously valuable. We could take steps toward this by focusing on the lead section; but ultimately, I think it might be desirable to have two (or more) wiki pages -- one for the overview, and the other(s) to document all the details of each reason.
I'll be taking this slow, and of course am very interested in any input others may have. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Peteforsyth]] 01:41, 16 April 2012 (EDT)
 
: Just to point out, CC are considering including some kind of NC explanation/definition into 4.0 (but they have not decided yet whether to include it or not), see e.g. [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157] --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 11:55, 16 April 2012 (EDT)
 
== The article does contradict itself ==
The part of article says: "The use of an -NC license is very rarely justifiable on economic or ideological grounds. It excludes many people, from free content communities to small scale commercial users, while the decision to give away your work for free already eliminates most large scale commercial uses."
 
On the other hand, another part of article explains, how wikipedia content is used in Google search results. As I see it, there is no way to prevent wikipedia content from beeing comercially used by a large scale commercial entity, like Google. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Consequently, if any entity, that is smaller, than wikipedia, i.e. any blogger decide to eliminate NC from their licence, there is no way, they can stop corporate entities, like Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc, etc from using their work. Wikipedia content in Google search results is a proof - the licence simply allows it. So this part of article is very misleading (and as I said before, contradicts with other parts of the article).
 
: The phrase "the decision to give away your work for free already eliminates most large scale commercial uses." is not great. It's too strong. The point is not that it eliminates large-scale commercial uses, merely that it eliminates the pay-for-access model of many large-scale publishers (especially if you use a copyleft license like CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia can be used by large commercial entities, and that's fine. But the CC-BY-SA license blocks companies from using the resources in a ''proprietary'' business model based on publishing.
: If Google were to sell downloads of Wikimedia images, it would be legal but impractical, since all the images are available anyway. Other business uses are fine, including Google using these same images in other ways in their business — as long as any derivatices stay free under the same license.
: --[[User:Wolftune|Wolftune]] ([[User talk:Wolftune|talk]]) 17:41, 28 July 2014 (EDT)
 
== Missing references to court cases? ==
 
Sorry if I overlooked them, but the page doesn't seem to mention these cases where non-commercial is interpreted very specifically:
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/2002Madeyedit.html NC is for amusement, idle curiosity, or philosophical inquiry]
* [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says-creative-commons-non-commercial-licenses-must-be-purely-personal-use.shtml NC is for purely personal use]

Latest revision as of 22:50, 8 July 2020

Archive 1 (September 2005 – April 2012)

The article does contradict itself[edit]

The part of article says: "The use of an -NC license is very rarely justifiable on economic or ideological grounds. It excludes many people, from free content communities to small scale commercial users, while the decision to give away your work for free already eliminates most large scale commercial uses."

On the other hand, another part of article explains, how wikipedia content is used in Google search results. As I see it, there is no way to prevent wikipedia content from beeing comercially used by a large scale commercial entity, like Google. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Consequently, if any entity, that is smaller, than wikipedia, i.e. any blogger decide to eliminate NC from their licence, there is no way, they can stop corporate entities, like Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc, etc from using their work. Wikipedia content in Google search results is a proof - the licence simply allows it. So this part of article is very misleading (and as I said before, contradicts with other parts of the article).

The phrase "the decision to give away your work for free already eliminates most large scale commercial uses." is not great. It's too strong. The point is not that it eliminates large-scale commercial uses, merely that it eliminates the pay-for-access model of many large-scale publishers (especially if you use a copyleft license like CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia can be used by large commercial entities, and that's fine. But the CC-BY-SA license blocks companies from using the resources in a proprietary business model based on publishing.
If Google were to sell downloads of Wikimedia images, it would be legal but impractical, since all the images are available anyway. Other business uses are fine, including Google using these same images in other ways in their business — as long as any derivatices stay free under the same license.
--Wolftune (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2014 (EDT)

Missing references to court cases?[edit]

Sorry if I overlooked them, but the page doesn't seem to mention these cases where non-commercial is interpreted very specifically:

Nice finds! Thank you! --Mormegil (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2014 (EDT)

Copyright duration[edit]

According to the article, copyright lasts until 70 years after the author's death. If the author has no right holders (like children or parents), doesn't the copyright expire sooner, like, at the end of the year? Calinou, 15:31, 16 September 2014 (EDT)

No. Well, at least not in the countries I am familiar with. When an author dies with no heirs, his copyrights just become a property of the state as an escheat. --Mormegil (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2014 (EDT)

"freedom"[edit]

I support the free culture movement, for the same reasons I oppose capitalism, which I find reprehensible. That's the flaw in the argument being made here. It takes for granted that there's nothing objectionable about the appropriation of free culture by those who make their living exploiting others. Just as a fish can't comprehend a reality outside water, most of us living under capitalism accept it as a simple reality, without moral significance. For such people, "freedom" includes capitalist freedom. They recognize the problem--enclosure of culture--but the solution they offer--"freedom"--fails to identify the culprit. I don't support freedom in the abstract. My support for freedom is contextual. For instance, I don't support the freedom of pedophiles to indulge their sexual compulsions. I want that freedom annihilated, and so do you. We're both tyrannically opposed to that freedom, and rightly so. Freedom is just a word. It only raises questions, it doesn't answer them. My opposition to a concept doesn't change simply because someone attaches the word "freedom" to it, as with the "free market system," and the same goes for other manipulative buzzwords like "liberty" and "voluntary." I'd love to be able to share compatible works, but my conscience won't allow me to empower our collective enemies. I restrict their freedom, for your sake as well as my own. I'd welcome an "exploitation free" license, like dolphin free tuna, which allows commercial use for individuals and cooperatives, while restricting it specifically for capitalist firms. --Freedum (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2014 (EDT)

Well, there have been licenses like that, in various forms. For instance, JSON.org license states “the Software shall be used for Good, not Evil”. However, this is generally not considered “free”, as free-license definitions usually forbid such limitations, e.g. the Open Source Definition contains the “No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor” clause. You are obviously free to design/use any such license, but you will be incompatible with most of what is generally considered “free licenses”. --Mormegil (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

For-profit platforms[edit]

Hello, this essay should mention that works with NC licenses cannot be shared on for-profit websites (YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, App Store, etc). --167.57.124.9 11:49, 10 March 2016 (EST)

New essay: The non-commercial provision obfuscates intent[edit]

Some years ago, I posted a comment here suggesting that the main page fails (especially in the four bullet points in the intro section) to identify what I view as the single, central flaw in the NC provision. That comment has now been archived; the page has been improved since then, but not in this particular respect.

Rather than try to edit this page, I've drafted a new, short essay on this topic. I think this topic stands alone effectively, and it's probably best to have it on a separate page, so it can be expressed clearly and without getting muddled with related concepts.

I'd welcome feedback/edits/assistance in improving the prose. If/when it's in a state that people like, I suggest it might make sense to link to it from this page. -Pete (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2020 (CEST)

Retrieved from "https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Licenses/NC&oldid=23864"