http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: commercial - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:44:11 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/44#post-475 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:30:03 +0000 diner dash game 475@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I have the same problem. I was thinking of just contacting the owner. It's less confusing, I think. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/187#post-360 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:12:43 +0000 bwhughes 360@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello,</p> <p>Two other women and I are starting a nonprofit organization dedicated to global peace. A large part of our endeavors will be around a new SYMBOL that one of my partners has developed. We will use this symbol as part of our logo, but we also want this symbol to be freely shared, with people being able to use it for commercial purposes only with permission. This symbol is one that could potentially be "universal" in the sense that symbols like the peace sign, the Christian fish, etc., are known throughout the world and understood. We think it is that important.</p> <p>I realize that a CC license can give us the "protection" we want of being attributed and having some control over its commercial use. But we are struggling with the issue of whether or not we should trademark this symbol.</p> <p>From what I have read, the spirit of what we want to do with this symbol can be served by applying a CC license. But one of us is strongly in favor of trademarking. None of us has a legal background or experience in these issues. The one who is in favor of trademarking has heard from several other people who she has questioned about it, who all say that we should trademark our symbol. But I have countered with the argument that not that many people even KNOW about Creative Commons.</p> <p>So I know that a CC license has nothing to do with trademarking. The question is, if our goal is to "protect" the symbol, which WILL be our logo but which we also want to have freely available for others to use, and if we want it to be ASSOCIATED with our organization, with its commercial use by anyone other than us being possible only with our permission, then is one of the CC licenses going to do this for us?</p> <p>Or is this something that we SHOULD trademark?</p> <p>Bear in mind that it is our strong desire to NOT have to put a TM or circle-R on our symbol. So if this is something that we SHOULD trademark, must we include those symbols on OUR symbol? Or can we trademark without showing those symbols?</p> <p>Thank you for any and all replies! </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/147#post-297 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:17:53 +0000 danq 297@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I am calling it "the fine print" because of the use of the Creative Commons logo on every page, with the logo linking to the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 page, when if you look at only one page you will see there is a catch.</p> <p>I am questioning the legality of Meg's actions because the Creative Commons license specifically forbids making exceptions outside of a signature in writing, which the "fine print" does not take into account. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/147#post-296 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:36:23 +0000 FruWikiMeg 296@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>As Danq has taken upon himself to misrepresent what's going on at FruWiki and make clearly LIBELOUS statements about me personally (e.g. "Frugal Scam Artist"), I thought I would clarify some things.</p> <p>I am not "planning on commercializing the material". While that may someday be the case, that is not and was never what this was about. I simply announced on the front page of FruWiki that I am "considering" changing the CC license to one that allows commercial use since it may at some point allow us to share content with other wikis with that license or possibly even GDFL -- something that would benefit readers much more than me since it would also mean that I would no longer be (possibly) the only one who could commercialize the material. I also added a link to the copyright information talk page encouraging discussion as I investigate the legalities. </p> <p>The "fine print" that Danq refers to is a clear, simply written copyright information page that is linked to at the top of the General Disclaimer page and is also listed at the "Disclaimers and Policies" page that is linked to at the top of the homepage -- where I clearly state: "If this is your first time here, please take a moment to check out the disclaimers and policies here." The copyright information page is hardly "fine print". It is a few paragraphs written by a non-lawyer in the belief that that would be sufficient and perhaps a much better alternative to legal obfuscation. </p> <p>You can see for yourself what I have written on the "Copyright information" page here: <a href="http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information" rel="nofollow">http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information</a> . I have never tried to hide anything there. And please, if I have said something that I shouldn't have, please let me know. And please let me know if the CC change is a possibility. I am not a lawyer, nor do I have the money to hire one. I am just a private citizen who is first and foremost on FruWiki trying to create a useful resource for others. And if you run a wiki, you probably realize how laughable the thought is that a scam artist would choose, of all the ways to make money unethically, to set up a frugal wiki site to rip off contributors by using their contributions. </p> <p>Thank you for your time. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/147#post-284 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:36:30 +0000 danq 284@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi,</p> <p>The Web site <a href="http://www.fruwiki.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.fruwiki.com</a> claims to be licensed under BY-NC-ND 3.0, though fine print claims that the submissions to this wiki do not fall under BY-NC-ND 3.0 when applied to the Web site's owner, only to its visitors and contributors (<a href="http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information)" rel="nofollow">http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information)</a>.</p> <p>The owner is planning on commercializing the material on the page, essentially ripping off contributions from myself and the other contributors.</p> <p>It is my understanding that any waivers to BY-NC-ND 3.0 must be signed in writing.</p> <p>Are per-user applications of the license allowed? It is also important to note that the Creative Commons logo and metadata are present on the wiki's pages, which could suggest inappropriate use of Creative Commons trademarks. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/101#post-224 Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:11:16 +0000 ahevans 224@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>hi, did you ever find an answer to this question? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/101#post-220 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:34:46 +0000 jpPenelton 220@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello! Let me apologize in advance for 1) not knowing anything about CC or copyrights in general, and 2) asking a question relating to software.</p> <p>I am making a computer card game (which I want to sell copies of,) and I would like to use playing card images that I downloaded. The images have a by-sa license, so I'm pretty sure I can use them commercially (with attribution, of course.)</p> <p>My concern is that the share alike license requires derivative works to also carry a CC license. Would my game be considered a derivative work? If so, what would be an appropriate commercial use?</p> <p>Or does "derivative work" just mean creating my own deck of cards based off the images I downloaded? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/94#post-209 Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:09:50 +0000 mlinksva 209@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Like you say "there is a clause in all cc licenses that prevents any additional restrictions from being attached."</p> <p>If you feel strongly about NC and advertising there is a NC survey being launched very very soon that will have the opportunity to give feedback on this. Will be announced on the CC blog. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/94#post-208 Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:11:15 +0000 hm 208@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I wanted to include an additional restriction with my cc license that explicitly prevented my work from being used in advertising. The old audio sampling licenses included this restriction, but they are now where to be found on the current licenses for other work. Unfortunately there is a clause in all cc licenses that prevents any additional restrictions from being attached.</p> <p> i understand the logic behind not allowing additional clauses to be added, since the cc universe would be a crazy, undecipherable mess if everyone was adding and removing provisions and restrictions from their licenses. The human readable summary would no longer be accurate, and search engines wouldn't be able to 'understand' the licenses.</p> <p>But I am guessing that the no advertising clause would be important to many people. For example you want to contribute your photos to Free Culture without stopping people from creating commercial derivative works, but you don't want a photo of your family being used by P&#38;G to sell laundry detergent. The no advertising restriction covers this: "You may not use this work to advertise for or promote anything but the work you create from it."</p> <p>Does anyone else feel a need for this restriction to be available in the current licenses - at least while CC is still working on determining what constitutes commercial use? </p> <p>Has anyone else had to mix up their own license to include an additional restriction? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/60#post-135 Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:17:48 +0000 mlinksva 135@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <blockquote><p>My understanding of commercial use is if I use a creative commons NC in an ad to sell or promote something.</p></blockquote> <p><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode</a> says exactly the following "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."</p> <blockquote><p>I need conformation that I can use NC music in a non commercial way on an ad supported site.</p></blockquote> <p>You're not going to get hard and fast confirmation here, because legal advice is not dispensed here. The best available guide is a draft, see <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC</a></p> <p>Note that you always have the options of using music released under a CC license without the NC term -- see <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Commercial_music" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Commercial_music</a> for some pointers -- or of asking for permission from NC licensors. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/60#post-134 Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:58:27 +0000 Adisa 134@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I have looked through the forums and I find conflicting or incomplete answers. I want to submit my vocal and submit some of my instrumentals then make any derivative work available on my website for free. My site is ad supported. I will be not be selling the music. My understanding of commercial use is if I use a creative commons NC in an ad to sell or promote something. I need conformation that I can use NC music in a non commercial way on an ad supported site. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/49#post-115 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:12:55 +0000 Ano 115@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Ah ok thank you. Than I´ll just use the examples for a beta. A proffessional will recreate the soundfile with his own instruments and tools. I guess that won´t be a problem because the samples I use are only tones like A, C etc. Nobody can held an overall license on a single tone? =P </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/49#post-114 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:24:49 +0000 mlinksva 114@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Ano, sorry, not that I know of -- unless your use is so small or so transformative that it would be considered <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use</a> in which case you don't need a license at all. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/49#post-110 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:43:17 +0000 Ano 110@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>The problem is that I have some time pressure on the project. There is no time to search for another source under different license. The samples that I have right now are really what I need for working.</p> <p>I know that I could ask the creators for the license, but there is no time for it now and somehow it´s an unsure thing for me. I don´t know how I can be sure that he gave the rights to me.</p> <p>That´s why I´m asking if there is a way of legalization or if mixing together things give me a new license with new rights, wich maybe allow ads. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/49#post-109 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:07:19 +0000 mlinksva 109@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Re which work, the work that is a derivative of the sampling+ work, ie the audio itself, not your software.</p> <p>If you're creating an ad you may want to look for something licensed under BY or BY-SA (but maybe not this unless you're willing to put your whole ad under BY-SA) or in the public domain, or negotiate a private permission. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/49#post-108 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:01:00 +0000 Ano 108@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello,</p> <p>I searched through the faq, but didn´t really found an answer for my problem. I got the task to create a sound logo for our commercial project. Yeah it will get even tv and radio ads so there will be a commercial use of the sound logo.</p> <p>I would like to create the sound logo with samples from a website wich hosts the works under the CC - Sampling Plus 1.0 license.<br /> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/</a></p> <p>Ok so I take two or more sound effects and mix, alter them together. Both sounds are under this license. In the end I created a new work, so I can put it under a new license like "reserved all rights"? The soundlogo will consit after a bunch of instrumental notes wich where all published under this license. I don´t only let them "play in a row" I also heavly overlap two or more (so I mix something new out of it).</p> <p>First of there are two things unclear for me:</p> <p># You may not use this work to advertise for or promote anything but the work you create from it.</p> <p>Wich work? An audio work or is my product allowed. I programed in a team on the product!</p> <p># For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page. </p> <p>#Attribute</p> <p>Hell. How should I do those two things? In every commercial tv ad? On the products website? I don´t have something like credits in the program for sure. The only thing that lies under a CC license would be just this soundlogo.</p> <p>I´m really thankful for some help. thx in advice </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/44#post-106 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:35:59 +0000 mlinksva 106@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I'm afraid I can't give you a definitive answer.</p> <p>As I said above, the safe approach is that if you think your use could be considered commercial -- find some content to use that doesn't have the NC term -- or ask the permission of the owner(s) of the content in question. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/44#post-100 Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:38:38 +0000 donjohannes 100@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Thanks Mike,</p> <p>I had looked at the page but my question remained, because for me as a layman some legal terms remained unspecified. From what I read and how I plan to use the content I would think, that its non-commercial use, but I want to be sure and do things right, because I do not have the financial background for some legal struggle. I guess one way would also be to contact the author of the content and ask his permission just in case. </p> <p>More thoughts are welcome,</p> <p>Thanks,<br /> Johannes </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/46#post-99 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:31:49 +0000 hlship 99@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Yes, Flickr is a good citizen in this case, with that checkbox. I've started using it.</p> <p>Looking over that document, it looks like my scenario falls into category C.2, which could be good: it's a noncommercial use. This seems further supported by some of the later discussion.</p> <p>The images I'm using are not the primary draw; in fact they are not directly illustrative, they're being used to enhance the documentation by providing visual interest without actually providing direct information.</p> <p>I'm going to mull this over further, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that, in the unlikely case that the license holder ever discovered my use of their work, we would agree that the use falls under the noncommercial umbrella. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/46#post-98 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:03:25 +0000 mlinksva 98@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>As ajbrooks says "[Y]you could always just use images that don't have the NC term, so you don't have to worry about it."</p> <p>Check "Find content to use commercially" at <a href="http://flickr.com/search/advanced" rel="nofollow">http://flickr.com/search/advanced</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/46#post-96 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:23:19 +0000 ajbrooks 96@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Maybe the NC guidelines draft (<a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC</a>) will help. However, those documents are just a draft and by no means the final word on the subject.</p> <p>Since I'm not a lawyer, it's difficult to give you advice on your particular situation. You could try contacting the people on Flickr whose pictures you want to use and get consent. Since they're already using CC, they probably would be more open to your reuse of them than someone who doesn't use CC at all. Or you could always just use images that don't have the NC term, so you don't have to worry about it. </p> <p>Perhaps there should be a sticky posted about NC with a link to that NC guidelines draft doc for others who come here looking for NC clarification.</p> <p>-Andy </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/46#post-95 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:21:55 +0000 hlship 95@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I could use some clarification about what "commercial" means.</p> <p>Here's my scenario:</p> <p>I do software training. I create slide decks. I use images on those slide decks.</p> <p>I often search Flickr and elsewhere, and find images I'd like to use in my slide decks, images that use the CC non-commercial license.</p> <p>Clients are either paying my company for training, or have paid to go to a conference.</p> <p>The slide decks for conference materials, at least in PDF form, are given away, subject only to my employer's copyright.</p> <p>The PDFs of training materials are not currently made freely available, but could be.</p> <p>Money exchanges hands ... but indirectly, for my time, and not as payment for the slide decks (which are, in fact, somewhat useless without the accompanying presenter).</p> <p>So ... is this considered "commercial"? </p> <p>I suspect the intent of "noncommericial" is to keep second parties from, for example, printing and seeling an artist's photos. Our copyright would prevent anyone from, say, printing and selling my slide decks, or using them as part of an on-line article. But do I have the right to use CC licensed images that have the "noncommerical" clause in my slide decks? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/44#post-93 Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:41:44 +0000 mlinksva 93@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Have you looked at <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC</a> ?</p> <p>Note those documents are not the final word.</p> <p>If you're really not certain and think it matters, use work that isn't licensed with the NC term. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/44#post-89 Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:36:39 +0000 donjohannes 89@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi,</p> <p>I have a question regarding the nature of a non-commercial license. Not being a legal expert I would like to clarify the "private monetary compensation" clause. What does this precisely mean?</p> <p>Example:<br /> For an educational DVD project (1000 copies printed) that is non-profit and will be released under cc license itself, I calculate the material production costs per copy to be around 3 USD. Now if I use content released under the CC license (attribute-non commercial) would it violate the license if these DVDs were distributed for the mere production costs at 3 USD or does this already constitute a commercial use? If so, I guess the only way would be to find sponsors for the 3000 USD </p>