
The harm of “non-commercial” - bensummers
http://blog.georgikobilarov.com/2010/01/the-harm-of-non-commercial/
======
ZeroGravitas
Creative Commons have known this was a stupid licence since they introduced
it, software licences had been through the same thing and learned from it.
They really should withdraw it, which is what I thought the recent
consultation was leading up to.

If you have to ask the users of your pro forma legal document "By the way,
what do you think this actually allows and prohibits?" then you're clearly
failing at your assigned task.

A link to the research paper:

<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial>

------
macmac
Why would anyone think that "non-commercial" would _only_ prevent earning
money on the licensed material? if the material plays any role in a commercial
endeavour obviously you cannot use it if it is CC "non-commercial". That is
why the license reads: "You may not use this work for commercial purposes."
_not_ "You may not earn money of this work."

~~~
mbrubeck
This isn't as "obvious" as you think.

First, you quoted the human-readable summary of the license, _not_ the license
itself. The CC-BY-NC 3.0 license actually says,

 _"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in
any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial
advantage or private monetary compensation."_

Note the word _primarily_ \- so if the use is only incidentally or secondarily
commercial in nature, it may still be compatible with the "non-commercial"
clauses. There are more details in the legalese of the license, but
nevertheless this is a very vague and somewhat controversial license - so much
that the Creative Commons organization did a survey of community members and
published a lengthy report on the different ways of interpreting it:

<http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127>

One question is: Do commercial businesses ever engage in non-commercial
activities? Is Hacker News a non-commercial community site that happens to be
operated by Y Combinator, or is it _"primarily directed toward commercial
advantage"_ merely by virtue of its affiliation?

~~~
macmac
I find the license even clearer than the summary I quoted. I am missing a
actual usage scenario where one could be uncertain if the use was inside or
outside the license.

~~~
mbrubeck
Suppose I'm a tenured professor and I publish a blog with educational posts
about computer science. I write blog entries during my working hours. The blog
isn't a requirement of my job but it may help raise my academic profile. Am I
free to use your CC-BY-SA 3.0 photo to illustrate my blog post?

What if, instead of a professor, I am a freelance programmer. There are no ads
or other exchange of money directly related to the blog, but sometimes
potential clients find me through my blog. But the blog is also a way for me
to converse with a group of regular readers whom I already know. Is this blog
_primarily_ directed toward commercial advantage?

In either of the above scenarious, suppose the blog has ads but that I don't
turn a profit on it (i.e. the ads defray but do not cover the hosting cost).
How about now?

Or what if the revenue from the ads is more than the hosting cost, but much
less than I could make through my professional activities. If the amount of
money is tiny relative to the time I spend on the blog, could I argue that the
blog is not _primarily_ directed toward commercial advantage?

You may find each of these cases perfectly clear and obvious, but wherever
_you_ draw an "obvious" line, the above study probably shows that many
Creative Commons members will think it should be somewhere else. Even the
organization that drafted the license admits that it doesn't provide very
explicit guidance for common cases like web sites that include (but don't rely
on) advertising, or sites that do not involve exchange of money but may
provide less-tangible commercial advantages for their owners.

------
Tichy
Non Commercial is basically useless. The only non-commercial site I can think
of is some mum blogging about her dog. Even if I just have a personal blog it
is kind of commercial because it is marketing for myself.

------
wendroid
I work for a registered non-profit charity financed partly by The Arts Council
and National Lottery Funding. You'd certainly call our licensed bar and
restaurant a commercial enterprise, as would the employees.

I also volunteer for a registered co-operative part-financed by said charity,
the rest from ticket sales of our film screenings. We have no legal obligation
to be non-profit or otherwise.

If I used your non-comm image on our website, how would you feel ?

