http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: noncommercial - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:05:38 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/81#post-474 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:21:54 +0000 diner dash games 474@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Non-commercial license basically means that you can't us it for profit or any commercial purpose. It may either be Attribution Non-Commercial, Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike or Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/175#post-465 Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:34:23 +0000 Anonymous 465@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>However, you should keep in mind that you can always ask the author directly and see if they mind or not. People have contacted me a couple of times to ask to use my stuff on a blog with advertising (even though my stuff is usually NC licensed) and I usually let them. Generally, as long as people are using stuff within the spirit of which I released it, I don't mind. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/81#post-441 Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:44:45 +0000 Game Server 441@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Thanks for the information. Let me just clarify this. If something has anon-commercial license then it means that you can't use it for profit purposes? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/175#post-365 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:55:48 +0000 osorio 365@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>quote: "We are training our own employees, not paying clients. My training course includes CC-licensed images that include "Non Commercial." Can I use these?" end quote.</p> <p>I think that this is one of the reasons that CC licenses were created in the first place. Allowing original works to be utilized in this manner can be rewarding on many levels. Many non profits develop learning tools and similar materials to help educate those who need it the most. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/175#post-341 Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:04:08 +0000 sympodius 341@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I'm not an expert, but I imagine it depends on which CC-license was used. However, if you weren't modifying the images, you attributed the original author and you weren't making any money directly from their use, I think you're OK for pretty much every license.</p> <p>As for the second and third point, I believe that if there is a non-commercial clause in the license, then you're not allowed those.</p> <p>However, you should keep in mind that you can always ask the author directly and see if they mind or not. People have contacted me a couple of times to ask to use my stuff on a blog with advertising (even though my stuff is usually NC licensed) and I usually let them. Generally, as long as people are using stuff within the spirit of which I released it, I don't mind. But that's something you'd have to ask each creator about themselves. In some cases, people have licensed the content from me for use in a particular product and I have then lifted the non-commercial clause for that one product.</p> <p>My understanding of the 'non-commercial' aspect is that if some entity makes money from a product that included creative commons content, then it must not have a non-commercial clause. For example, a blog page is a product and a creative commons image could be an element of that product. A presentation is a product, and the CC images would be elements of that product. If you charge people to see the product, the images should not have a non-commercial clause.</p> <p>As I say, though, I'm not an expert and this may not be correct. I find it best just to ask the original content owner if there is anything you're not sure about. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/175#post-340 Thu, 28 May 2009 20:17:43 +0000 mlentz 340@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello! </p> <p>I'd like to learn more about Creative Commons, and I had a list of questions to which I haven't been able to find the answers in the FAQs. </p> <p>These are all hypotheticals at the moment. Would love feedback. </p> <p> - I work for a for-profit company. However, we have a training department that offers only internal training. We are training our own employees, not paying clients. My training course includes CC-licensed images that include "Non Commercial." Can I use these? We're not technically making money off the training. </p> <p> - I have a blog on which I have advertising. I make minimal money at best from this advertising, but it is there. In a blog post (separate from the advertising), I have used a BY-NC image and given appropriate attribution. Is this still considered non-commercial? </p> <p> - I offer a training class and I'm using several Creative Commons-licensed images in a presentation and I charge people to take the course, can I use images with the non-commercial licenses? </p> <p>(I think I know the answer to the last one, but I want to verify.)</p> <p>Thanks! It seems that the world of "Noncommercial" is where everyone I talk to gets a bit confused.</p> <p>Cheers! </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/81#post-216 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:42:00 +0000 ccmusic 216@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi Kriz, this is a tricky one. In an ideal world every image with CC licensing would be tagged and embedded with the creators details which would be displayed using an app of some fashion when used outside of the creators domain. This sounds like a simple solution, although there will always be issues of ethics and morality in using these images.</p> <p>The only suggestion I can offer would be to create relationships with your most used image creators and cut a deal with them. Not ideal, but it would make the work-flow more efficient. </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/81#post-189 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:13:25 +0000 kriz 189@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>So lately, Ive been looking at the Creative Commons license. Especially, because I am hoping to use some photos in flickr under the CC license. However, even with this license, things are a bit unclear.</p> <p>First off, the attribution part. Flickr says:</p> <blockquote><p> Attribution means:<br /> You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give you credit.</p> </blockquote> <p>The CC website says:</p> <blockquote><p> Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).</p> </blockquote> <p>So if I decide to use a CC attribution image on a blog entry I would have to credit the owner of the image. Which is fine. But what happens if I do 15-20 blog topics a day with different images containing the CC attribution licenses. Wouldn't it be overkill to email 20 authors that I will be using their image and wait for their response? Sure I can provide a email template and manually type their email address'.</p> <p>Which leaves me with a few awkward scenarios:<br /> - If they dont reply (due to out of office, email caught in spam filter, etc), does that mean I can not use this image?<br /> - A week from now, I find another image from the same owner. I send the template email again, but for another image. And the next week I do the same thing. Wouldnt this just annoy the owner of the image? I know I would feel annoyed if I saw several emails requesting how I should credit each image.<br /> - These are just a few that I could think of...</p> <p>Theoretically, what if half of the image owners comes back and says "Just make sure you credit my name in font-size 54" or "Credit my name on the footer of your website".</p> <p>I think the attribution license should just be, not in these words: "As long as you credit the owner of the image". Period! Which is Flickr's short definition for this type of license.</p> <p>Second, what constitutes a non-commercial license? What exactly is commercial? What if I am profiting indirectly? Does that go against non-commercial? </p> <p>For example:<br /> If I have a blog that has adverts on the site, obviously, I am making some money. But not because of the image that belongs to somebody else.</p> <p>The CC non-commercial explanation is still in draft form, as you can see here:<br /> <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines</a></p> <p>In conclusion, if I grab a CC non-commercial image and post it on my site that has adverts, affiliate links, etc, am I violating the use of this image? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/73#post-168 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:28:35 +0000 mlinksva 168@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Have you checked out <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC</a> ? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/73#post-163 Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:18:16 +0000 johndoe 163@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi! I've searched the forums and the mailing list archive, but I can't find an answer to this question. I'm sorry if it's been asked before and I've just somehow missed it!</p> <p>I work for an organization with Canadian charitable status. So, we're nonprofit and noncommercial, by nature. We send out newsletters six times yearly to all of our past supporters. The newsletters tell of what we've been doing and mention any needs we have (usually practical - like sleeping bags). And, on the back, there's information about how people can donate if they're interested.</p> <p>Would we be able to use NonCommercially licensed photographs on our newsletters? Any money we receive from the work is very indirect, and none of it is profit (it all goes back into running our programs). </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/8#post-27 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:10:49 +0000 mlinksva 27@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>It is a joke and a real alternative.</p> <p>The joke is that often when someone proposes using BY-NC, someone else will jump in and explain why they should use BY-SA instead. This forum is new, but you can see many instances of that on CC mailing lists.</p> <p>It is also a real alternative, but will take some rethinking on your part. If your bottom line is simply preventing anything that looks like commerce around the content, NC does that, but it also discourages uses that you might want and that would be good for the broader commons, and there is a fair amount of disagreement about what actually constitutes "noncommercial" use.</p> <p>The BY-SA people would argue that you shouldn't really want to prevent any and all commerce, but to ensure that content remains in and builds the commons, which is what BY-SA does. If a commercial entity builds on work but is forced by the license to contribute it back under the same license, that should be for the good, unless you just hate commerce -- or something along those lines.</p> <p>If you're interested in that perspective I suggest checking out <a href="http://freedomdefined.org/Definition" rel="nofollow">http://freedomdefined.org/Definition</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft</a> -- and their perspective on NC at <a href="http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC" rel="nofollow">http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/8#post-24 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:43:56 +0000 nikita-br 24@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>What do you mean by "using BY-SA instead of BY-NC". Is that just a joke or is it a real alternative? (both would be OK) </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/8#post-21 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:33:38 +0000 mlinksva 21@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I see. Well I imagine (this is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer) that if instead of your ToS saying you can do whatever you want with contributed content you have users agree to a CC BY-NC license AND yourself use the content under that license, it would then not be possible to take the site commercial without removing all of the content (or getting permission from all of the users) first.</p> <p>I'm sure given enough time someone will suggest how you can accomplish this end using BY-SA instead of BY-NC. :) </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/8#post-18 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:32:13 +0000 nikita-br 18@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello Mike Linksvayer,</p> <p>thank you for your response and for pointing me to the presentation. I am planning a non-commercial social networking site and now gather advice from experienced people so I can put together the right ToS and licensing model. </p> <p>The reason I'd like this site to have some sort of a legal mechanism that will prevent it from going commercial is that I could become interested in some other project one day and will have to hand over this site to someone else. So, I'd like to make sure no ads and no paid accounts will emerge on the website. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/8#post-16 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:21:54 +0000 mlinksva 16@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi nikita-br,</p> <p>Depends on lots of things. Do you run the site in question? If not, applying a CC NC license to your contributions to the site may not matter if the site has some other ToS that you've agreed to. Certainly a site can arrange for some data to be public (and some or all of that under one or more of the CC licenses) and some data private. You'll have to describe the situation in more detail.</p> <p>Somewhat tangential, but for community sites that do turn commercial, I cannot recommend Evan Prodromou's "Commercialization of Wikis" (really applies to any community site) presentation highly enough, see <a href="http://evan.prodromou.name/Talks/SXSW07" rel="nofollow">http://evan.prodromou.name/Talks/SXSW07</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/8#post-15 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:47:29 +0000 nikita-br 15@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Dear CC People,</p> <p>I am looking for ways to prevent a free website from turning commercial in the long run.</p> <p>Would a NonCommercial CC license be an appropriate way for this? Would it also still be possible to keep some portions of the site "private" for the user or some specified group of users? Has anybody already seen something like that?</p> <p>Any ideas and help are greatly appreciated! </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/6#post-11 Tue, 27 May 2008 07:33:28 +0000 johndoe 11@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Thanks Mike! I think you are right: "the enlightened thing to do is to let anyone use your work". That's indeed what it's all about. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/6#post-10 Mon, 26 May 2008 19:25:40 +0000 mlinksva 10@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi johndoe,</p> <p>Good question. The best guidelines we have no regarding what constitutes commercial use are at <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC</a> but these are in draft form and don't seem to attempt to cover political parties, and probably other arguably non-commercial users as well. So there is no definitive answer.</p> <p>However, I would say that CC licenses, like almost all "open" licenses, are intended to be offered to the public, not everyone excepting people the licensor doesn't like.</p> <p>I think the enlightened thing to do is to let anyone use your work and demand attribution with a link (as every CC license facilitates) to you. If your enemy wants to go ahead and link to you, which presumably subverts their cause, great!</p> <p>If you can't stomach unforseen uses of your work, don't release it under a public license. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/6#post-9 Mon, 26 May 2008 10:43:15 +0000 johndoe 9@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi CC people,</p> <p>We had a discussion today about licensing our photos on Flickr. A friend licensed his photos for "non-commercial" as he doesn't want to open up the license for political parties he doesn't support. I can see his point, it could be unethically to give your photos for a cause you don't support or worse, you try to fight against.</p> <p>So, my question here... is a political party a commercial organization? They get subsidies and don't make profit, they don't "sell" anything and are not subscribed in the "commercial register" (at least in Belgium that is).</p> <p>Does anyone know something about this?</p> <p>Thanks! </p>