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
 
(134 intermediate revisions by 60 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? ==


== Collecting societies ==
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]


Excellent overview, Erik
: Nice finds! Thank you! --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:13, 5 September 2014 (EDT)


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.
== Copyright duration ==


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.
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)


Patrick Peiffer, cc-lu www.luxcommons.lu
: 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)


: 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.
== "freedom" ==


: 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)
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)


== French articles ==
: 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)


Hi Erik,
== For-profit platforms ==


We have a bunch of articles in French about Creative Commons on our Web site Libroscope, notably:
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)
* 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.
== New essay: [[The non-commercial provision obfuscates intent]] ==
(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
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.


Antoine (antoine //at// pitrou **dot** net)
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.


: Hello Antoine,
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)
 
: 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)
 
==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)
 
== 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/]
--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 14 February 2007 (CET)
T
== 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)
 
==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 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 that demagoguery over "free".  [[User:70.149.84.178|70.149.84.178]] 22:36, 17 February 2007 (CET)

Latest revision as of 00:50, 9 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"