Print

Print


The only time at work I wanted to use a NC license I asked the creator for
their definition and we agreed the use case I presented was commercial so I
didn't use it.

So to summise so far

1) No one really gets NC
2) Some people feel the spirit of NC means non-profit is ok (which I agree
with)



On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Scott Wilson <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> On 18 Mar 2014, at 11:22, David Kernohan wrote:
>
> > Hi all - no-one has ever understood the creative commons non-commercial
> clause. There are rumours that somebody at CC central once did, but this
> was quickly hushed up and the person responsible is now safely hidden away
> in Kazakhstan.
> >
> > Unsurprisingly, there is little case-law around NC.
> >
> > A former Dutch MTV VJ (remember VJs?) shared some images on Flickr via a
> BY-NC-SA license and a gossip magazine reprinted them. The magazine was
> fined and told not to do it again, but this centred on the SA component of
> the license.
> > http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6052292.html
> >
> > The Vodafone Australia case (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Mobile_Australia ) was the other main
> one, but all mentions other than on Wikipedia now appear to be behind "The
> Australian" 's paywall.
> >
> > I've been consistent in advising people always to go for -SA clauses
> rather than -NC clauses to avoid confusion (and I'll reiterate this here
> for any new readers). But if something is NC and your use may be commercial
> in some obvious way I would advise people to contact the source of the
> material and ask them.
>
> Also worth remembering that the rights owner can issue the same resource
> with different licenses. So there is nothing to prevent the rights owner
> issuing a standard commercial use license that removes the "NC" ambiguity.
>
> Though if you do issue resources under an NC clause, I think the best
> strategy is to prominently display an explanation of what YOU think NC
> means, as that will help licensees figure if they can comply with your
> intent.
>
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > -
> > David Kernohan
> > Jisc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Alex Fenlon
> > Sent: 18 March 2014 11:01
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: non-profit = non-commercial
> >
> > Hi Pat et al.
> >
> > I remember several of these discussions taking place over recent weeks
> and months (and years even!) as we've struggled with the different
> interpretations. I seem to recall there was something from CC themselves
> about taking care to define what NC means.  I think the advice was for each
> Licensor that grants an NC licence to consider what it defines as
> commercial use and also NC.  This would remove the ambiguity at least for
> Licencees of those particular works and help in those circumstances.  (I
> also have bells ringing where certain OER-ers did do this ... ?)
> >
> > Not sure that helps much either with the umbrella approach you might be
> looking for Pat.
> >
> > Alex.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Chris.Pegler
> > Sent: 18 March 2014 10:53
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: non-profit = non-commercial
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > If its non profit its not profitable after all costs are accounted for,
> which raises an issue about what the costs are and so what the 'cost price'
> is. For example its common in universities for the cost of an academic to
> include not only their salary but also a whole load of overheads. This can
> almost double the cost and includes an automatic allocation to all sorts of
> general expenses. Did you mean 'direct costs'?
> >
> > This sort of discussion also comes up when charities charge large admin
> fees. For example including large salaries.
> >
> > This may not be the solution that you are looking for?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Pat Lockley [[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 18 March 2014 10:41
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: non-profit = non-commercial
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Discussion in the other place led me to an sticking point with NC
> licenses
> >
> > If there was a site which sold - at cost price - physical copies of
> presently digital OER, say bound printed epubs or CDs / DVDs, and in the
> sale of these items made no profit (so was non-profit /
> > provident?) would you consider that commercial?
> >
> > Thinking is for people who don't have easy access to the internet this
> might prove a useful intermediary
> >
> > Pat
> > -- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC
> 038302).
>
>