Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

4.0/ShareAlike

2011-12-20T21:04:52Z

Exhipigeonist: Outlined some concerns regarding the 'share the wealth' clause proposal.

{{4.0 Issue}}

There are roughly three issues that have been discussed for years that could potentially be addressed. Ideally, addressing one or more of these could increase clarity of relevant CC licenses, and increase range of and differentiation within CC license suite.

==ShareAlike scope==

Effectively, this has been treated as identical to potentially tweaking the definition of adaptations vs collections.
* Version 2.0 added "For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License." (Please discuss this particular clarifying language on the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/license_subject_matter#Automatic_localization_of_the_license License subject matter page].)
* Many have wanted something similar added clarifying when use of an image creates an adaptation/derivative. This was visited especially during discussions with the Wikimedia community, leading to no immediate change, but an assurance that the scope of BY-SA's copyleft would only be increased, if changed at all in the 3rd point of [[CC Attribution-ShareAlike Intent]]

Relatedly, it has also been pointed out that CC license definitions of work/adaptation/collection are somewhat hard to read.

=== Proposals relating to SA scope in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''SA Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Make no changes.'''
* Pros:
* Cons: Does not allow the creation to evolve. It is not made clear how to incorporate SA materials into otherwise licensed works.
* Other comments: There is already a 'no derivatives' option. The concept of derivation could be made more clear with examples such as "remix, translate, integrate, aggregate, etc."

'''''SA Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Make work/adaptation/collection definitions easier to read, but strive to not make any effective change.'''
* Pros: Will clarify terminology.
* Cons: New observations based on experience with current CC licenses may bot be taken into account.
* Other comments: Explain that the Share Alike clause discourages exploitave commercial uses while still allowing commerce in the commons and OER landscape.

'''''SA Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Expand scope of adaptation (thus SA) specifically for some class of use of images, analogous to synching added in 2.0.'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: Also allow certain exceptions such as mixing CC-by-SA with GPL or similarly spirited licenses.

'''''SA Proposal No. 4:''''' '''A more aggressive expansion of SA, including some collections, except those that are mere aggregations (see GPL).'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments:

'''''SA Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Share the wealth clause, requesting that commercial gain (e.g. profits) be shared back to the original creator(s).'''
* Pros: gives financial incentive to release assets under Free Culture Certified licenses. Reduces concern about commercial (ab)uses of creative works.
* Cons: May be hard to figure out proportional income distribution. Perhaps a general guideline could ease this process.
* Cons: Introduces some of the issues raised by [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial the NC term] - namely, confusion over what is commercial use ('profits' are mentioned in this proposal) and could be a disincentive to share and remix works where otherwise allowed. NC is often adopted out of a (perhaps largely misguided because SA addresses it) concern for commercial exploitation. If 'share the wealth' becomes a new trend ('Yeah, of course I want to choose the option to receive money from others who use my work!') it may heavily reduce the cultural value of any works under that license.
* Other comments: Create a table of fair share profit distribution (perhaps percentage based) to guide the reciprocative process.
* Other comments: Difficult to determine how to share profits. May need a public directory of CC licensors and their payment details. Perhaps link this in with profile pages on the CC site, creating an incentive to register your works here. (However, my understanding is that this costs the user a (albeit minimal) yearly fee, reducing access to this service.)

''Please add other SA proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

==Source-requiring SA==

(Note that scope and whether source required are independent of each other.)

Some would like a copyleft for creative works that requires not just sharing adaptations under the same license, but making preferred form for modification available, as the GPL does for software. FDL includes a weaker requirement of providing copies in "transparent" formats. Especially the former may be too far for BY-SA to go (but costs/benefits could be listed to see). Could possibly be addressed via compatibility, see next.

==Compatibility with other copyleft licenses==

Directly related to the interoperability goal of 4.0. The following licenses have been discussed at various points, regarding compatibility with BY-SA:
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Free Art License]
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html Free Documentation License]
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GPL] (unique among these, could only be one-way with BY-SA as donor; would address desire for source-requiring license, long-term trend toward more mixing of "code" and "content" in ways beyond former accessing latter)
* [http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Open Database LIcense] (ODbL)

Some things to consider in 4.0 process:
* What could be done to bring BY-SA into better alignment technically with these other licenses where they are in the same spirit?
* Should explicit compatibility with any of these be aimed for? In theory this could be a post-4.0 discussion assuming compatible licenses hook remains, but in practice, if compatibility is to be possible, 4.0 changes should be considered in that light
* Discuss with stewards of each of above licenses, with regard to BY-SA 4.0, future versions of their licenses, alignment, and explicit compatibility statements
* Similar to above, discuss with other stewards possibility of agreeing on/promoting common license text

===Considerations regarding compatibility of other licenses===
''Please add other important considerations to this discussion here.''

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''

* [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_Puro_License Libre Puro License] (draft)
** [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License#Preamble_for_the_Libre_Puro_License Preamble]
** [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License_Draft_Creative_Commons_Deed License deed]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say Libre]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_knowledge Libre knowledge]

4.0/NonCommercial

2011-12-20T20:37:55Z

Exhipigeonist: Embedded a link properly

{{4.0 Issue}}


The NonCommmercial (NC) term has for CC's entire history been more popular than ShareAlike and NoDerivatives, the other two optional terms in the CC license suite, though its popularity has slowly but steadily declined.<ref>See chart on slide 8 of the presentation by Mike Linksvayer at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/the-definition-and-future-of-noncommercial "The definition and future of noncommercial"]</ref> The term as it has appeared in all international [[License versions|versions]] thus far (1.0,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 1.0]</ref> 2.0,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0]</ref> 2.5,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5]</ref> 3.0<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0]</ref>):
:''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. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.'''

This is reflected on NC license deeds as:<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 license deed (explanation)]</ref>
:''Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.''

Also in the CC license chooser, with the following question:<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/choose CC license chooser]</ref>
:''Allow commercial uses of your work? ( ) Yes ( ) No''

In addition to much use, the NC term has attracted much discussion and criticism on two grounds:
# uncertainty as to whether particular uses fall in the scope of the term (currently, digital file sharing is the only type of use explicitly stated to be noncommercial)
# works licensed using the term are not fully free/open and the attractiveness of the term, or of CC itself, could lead to under-use of fully open terms (i.e., CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA)

Several [[Case Law|legal cases]] have involved works under CC licenses containing the NC term.

The popularity of the NC term, and debate around it, indicate that it is an important issue to examine rigorously, and get right (see the main [[4.0|4.0 page]] for context of overall goals) -- which could mean changes in the 4.0 suite, changes outside the licenses themselves, or retaining the exact language used thus far.

== Proposals for 4.0 ==
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''NC Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Clarify the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match wishes of most conservative NC licensors.''' (e.g., making it clear that use of a licensed work on an ad-supported website is commercial)
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: See also Proposal No 5; a 2009 CC study found licensees tend to interpret NC conservatively.

'''''NC Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Narrow the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match wishes of most permissive NC licensors.''' (e.g., making it clear that use of a licensed work on an ad-supported website is non-commercial)
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: Even if the definition of 'commercial' is not narrowed or broadened, there may be some need to clarify it given widespread confusion; a 2009 CC study found licensors tend to interpret NC liberally.

'''''NC Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Eliminate or re-brand the NC licenses at 4.0 so they do not use the Creative Commons name, or otherwise stand apart.'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: The majority (albeit a diminishing majority) of CC works are NC-licensed

'''''NC Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Eliminate one or more (but not all) of the NC licenses from the 4.0 license suite.'''
*'''BY-NC''' [Note: please visit the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page to comment on this proposal.]
*'''BY-NC-SA'''
**Pros: BY-NC-SA and BY-SA are incompatible, creating two corralled reciprocal commons.
** Cons:
** Other comments:
*'''BY-NC-ND'''
**Pros:
** Cons:
** Other comments: The most conservative CC licence and potentially a 'stepping stone' to more liberal licences.

'''''NC Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Change the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match the wishes of the most conservative NC licensors.''' (e.g., deleting clause specifying that digital file sharing is a noncommercial use)
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: I spun this off from Proposal No 1, because as far as I can tell the example went further than the proposal (the proposal was to clarify the NC definition to be conservative; the example is about deleting a pre-existing part of the NC definition)

'''''NC Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Explicitly state that NC licences are non-free, non-libre and non-open licences'''
* Pros: Because 'free' and 'open' are publicly recognised terms with value, making it clear that NC works are not free and open will encourage the use of other licences.
* Cons: The terms 'open content','open gaming' and 'open educational resources' have been used broadly to include NC content.
* Other comments: A milder form of Proposal 3

'''''NC Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Replace/transform NonCommercial license with/to NonProfit-License'''
* Pros:
* Cons:

'''''NC Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Provide ways for users to clarify what questionable uses they are willing to allow '''
* Pros: Removes the ambiguity of the NC license
* Cons: Creates a splinted mess of potentially non-compatible sub-licenses.
* Other comments: In educational use, I often want to have CC-NC licensed materials printed through print-on-demand companies. It is unclear whether this is commercial or not, since the printing company is certainly making a profit. It would be nice if the copyright holder could specify whether they allow cases like this.
* Other comments: This may fall under [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_change_the_terms_of_a_CC_license_or_waive_some_of_its_conditions.3F the waiver options available to licensors] and therefore be unnecessary. ("A licensor may always grant more permissions than are granted by our licenses. The 3.0 licenses specifically contemplate a waiver or consent as long as the waiver or consent is in writing and signed.") In the example above, adding some text about the waiver conditions next to the CC license should suffice.

''Please add other NC proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''
* Presentation by Mike Linksvayer at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/the-definition-and-future-of-noncommercial "The definition and future of noncommercial"] presented some very high level history, considerations, and options for NC in the 4.0 suite.
* Hagedorn G, Mietchen D, Morris R, Agosti D, Penev L, Berendsohn W, Hobern D (2011) [http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2189/abstract/creative-commons-licenses-and-the-non-commercial-condition-implications-for-the-re-use-of-biodiversity-information Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information.] ZooKeys 150: 127-149. (Authors recommend CC rename/rebrand and add visual and explanatory cues to the NC licenses to distinguish them from fully open licenses, and to pursue clarification of the NC definition, referencing upcoming 4.0 work.)
* [[Defining Noncommercial|Defining “Noncommercial”: A Study of How the Online Population Understands “Noncommercial Use”]] was published 14 September, 2009; particularly relevant sections include Section 4.1, Import for Creative Commons Noncommercial Licenses, and Section 4.2, Recommendations on Using CC Noncommercial Licenses.
* [http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License] is the most widely read critique of the NC term as non-free/open.
* Article by Joshua Benton from the Nieman Journalism Lab dated 8 November, 2011: [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/11/wired-releases-images-via-creative-commons-but-reopens-a-debate-on-what-noncommercial-means/ "Wired releases images via Creative Commons but reopens debate on what "noncommercial" means."]
* [http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/09/01/paley-vs-doctorow/ A debate] between free culture advocate Nina Paley and Creative Commons pioneer Cory Doctorow over the NonCommercial licences. Of particular note is Doctorow's distinction between 'industrial' and 'personal' use.

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:NonCommercial]]

4.0/NonCommercial

2011-12-20T20:36:22Z

Exhipigeonist: Minir visual improvements =)

{{4.0 Issue}}


The NonCommmercial (NC) term has for CC's entire history been more popular than ShareAlike and NoDerivatives, the other two optional terms in the CC license suite, though its popularity has slowly but steadily declined.<ref>See chart on slide 8 of the presentation by Mike Linksvayer at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/the-definition-and-future-of-noncommercial "The definition and future of noncommercial"]</ref> The term as it has appeared in all international [[License versions|versions]] thus far (1.0,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 1.0]</ref> 2.0,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0]</ref> 2.5,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5]</ref> 3.0<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0]</ref>):
:''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. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.'''

This is reflected on NC license deeds as:<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 license deed (explanation)]</ref>
:''Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.''

Also in the CC license chooser, with the following question:<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/choose CC license chooser]</ref>
:''Allow commercial uses of your work? ( ) Yes ( ) No''

In addition to much use, the NC term has attracted much discussion and criticism on two grounds:
# uncertainty as to whether particular uses fall in the scope of the term (currently, digital file sharing is the only type of use explicitly stated to be noncommercial)
# works licensed using the term are not fully free/open and the attractiveness of the term, or of CC itself, could lead to under-use of fully open terms (i.e., CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA)

Several [[Case Law|legal cases]] have involved works under CC licenses containing the NC term.

The popularity of the NC term, and debate around it, indicate that it is an important issue to examine rigorously, and get right (see the main [[4.0|4.0 page]] for context of overall goals) -- which could mean changes in the 4.0 suite, changes outside the licenses themselves, or retaining the exact language used thus far.

== Proposals for 4.0 ==
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''NC Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Clarify the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match wishes of most conservative NC licensors.''' (e.g., making it clear that use of a licensed work on an ad-supported website is commercial)
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: See also Proposal No 5; a 2009 CC study found licensees tend to interpret NC conservatively.

'''''NC Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Narrow the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match wishes of most permissive NC licensors.''' (e.g., making it clear that use of a licensed work on an ad-supported website is non-commercial)
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: Even if the definition of 'commercial' is not narrowed or broadened, there may be some need to clarify it given widespread confusion; a 2009 CC study found licensors tend to interpret NC liberally.

'''''NC Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Eliminate or re-brand the NC licenses at 4.0 so they do not use the Creative Commons name, or otherwise stand apart.'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: The majority (albeit a diminishing majority) of CC works are NC-licensed

'''''NC Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Eliminate one or more (but not all) of the NC licenses from the 4.0 license suite.'''
*'''BY-NC''' [Note: please visit the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page to comment on this proposal.]
*'''BY-NC-SA'''
**Pros: BY-NC-SA and BY-SA are incompatible, creating two corralled reciprocal commons.
** Cons:
** Other comments:
*'''BY-NC-ND'''
**Pros:
** Cons:
** Other comments: The most conservative CC licence and potentially a 'stepping stone' to more liberal licences.

'''''NC Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Change the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match the wishes of the most conservative NC licensors.''' (e.g., deleting clause specifying that digital file sharing is a noncommercial use)
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: I spun this off from Proposal No 1, because as far as I can tell the example went further than the proposal (the proposal was to clarify the NC definition to be conservative; the example is about deleting a pre-existing part of the NC definition)

'''''NC Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Explicitly state that NC licences are non-free, non-libre and non-open licences'''
* Pros: Because 'free' and 'open' are publicly recognised terms with value, making it clear that NC works are not free and open will encourage the use of other licences.
* Cons: The terms 'open content','open gaming' and 'open educational resources' have been used broadly to include NC content.
* Other comments: A milder form of Proposal 3

'''''NC Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Replace/transform NonCommercial license with/to NonProfit-License'''
* Pros:
* Cons:

'''''NC Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Provide ways for users to clarify what questionable uses they are willing to allow '''
* Pros: Removes the ambiguity of the NC license
* Cons: Creates a splinted mess of potentially non-compatible sub-licenses.
* Other comments: In educational use, I often want to have CC-NC licensed materials printed through print-on-demand companies. It is unclear whether this is commercial or not, since the printing company is certainly making a profit. It would be nice if the copyright holder could specify whether they allow cases like this.
* Other comments: This may fall under <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_change_the_terms_of_a_CC_license_or_waive_some_of_its_conditions.3F">the waiver options available to licensors</a> and therefore be unnecessary. ("A licensor may always grant more permissions than are granted by our licenses. The 3.0 licenses specifically contemplate a waiver or consent as long as the waiver or consent is in writing and signed.") In the example above, adding some text about the waiver conditions next to the CC license should suffice.

''Please add other NC proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''
* Presentation by Mike Linksvayer at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/the-definition-and-future-of-noncommercial "The definition and future of noncommercial"] presented some very high level history, considerations, and options for NC in the 4.0 suite.
* Hagedorn G, Mietchen D, Morris R, Agosti D, Penev L, Berendsohn W, Hobern D (2011) [http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2189/abstract/creative-commons-licenses-and-the-non-commercial-condition-implications-for-the-re-use-of-biodiversity-information Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information.] ZooKeys 150: 127-149. (Authors recommend CC rename/rebrand and add visual and explanatory cues to the NC licenses to distinguish them from fully open licenses, and to pursue clarification of the NC definition, referencing upcoming 4.0 work.)
* [[Defining Noncommercial|Defining “Noncommercial”: A Study of How the Online Population Understands “Noncommercial Use”]] was published 14 September, 2009; particularly relevant sections include Section 4.1, Import for Creative Commons Noncommercial Licenses, and Section 4.2, Recommendations on Using CC Noncommercial Licenses.
* [http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License] is the most widely read critique of the NC term as non-free/open.
* Article by Joshua Benton from the Nieman Journalism Lab dated 8 November, 2011: [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/11/wired-releases-images-via-creative-commons-but-reopens-a-debate-on-what-noncommercial-means/ "Wired releases images via Creative Commons but reopens debate on what "noncommercial" means."]
* [http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/09/01/paley-vs-doctorow/ A debate] between free culture advocate Nina Paley and Creative Commons pioneer Cory Doctorow over the NonCommercial licences. Of particular note is Doctorow's distinction between 'industrial' and 'personal' use.

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:NonCommercial]]

4.0/NonCommercial

2011-12-20T20:35:08Z

Exhipigeonist: Mentioned waiver options and how this may cancel out any need for proposal 8.

{{4.0 Issue}}


The NonCommmercial (NC) term has for CC's entire history been more popular than ShareAlike and NoDerivatives, the other two optional terms in the CC license suite, though its popularity has slowly but steadily declined.<ref>See chart on slide 8 of the presentation by Mike Linksvayer at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/the-definition-and-future-of-noncommercial "The definition and future of noncommercial"]</ref> The term as it has appeared in all international [[License versions|versions]] thus far (1.0,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 1.0]</ref> 2.0,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0]</ref> 2.5,<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5]</ref> 3.0<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0]</ref>):
:''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. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.'''

This is reflected on NC license deeds as:<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 license deed (explanation)]</ref>
:''Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.''

Also in the CC license chooser, with the following question:<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/choose CC license chooser]</ref>
:''Allow commercial uses of your work? ( ) Yes ( ) No''

In addition to much use, the NC term has attracted much discussion and criticism on two grounds:
# uncertainty as to whether particular uses fall in the scope of the term (currently, digital file sharing is the only type of use explicitly stated to be noncommercial)
# works licensed using the term are not fully free/open and the attractiveness of the term, or of CC itself, could lead to under-use of fully open terms (i.e., CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA)

Several [[Case Law|legal cases]] have involved works under CC licenses containing the NC term.

The popularity of the NC term, and debate around it, indicate that it is an important issue to examine rigorously, and get right (see the main [[4.0|4.0 page]] for context of overall goals) -- which could mean changes in the 4.0 suite, changes outside the licenses themselves, or retaining the exact language used thus far.

== Proposals for 4.0 ==
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''NC Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Clarify the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match wishes of most conservative NC licensors.''' (e.g., making it clear that use of a licensed work on an ad-supported website is commercial)
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: See also Proposal No 5; a 2009 CC study found licensees tend to interpret NC conservatively.

'''''NC Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Narrow the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match wishes of most permissive NC licensors.''' (e.g., making it clear that use of a licensed work on an ad-supported website is non-commercial)
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: Even if the definition of 'commercial' is not narrowed or broadened, there may be some need to clarify it given widespread confusion; a 2009 CC study found licensors tend to interpret NC liberally.

'''''NC Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Eliminate or re-brand the NC licenses at 4.0 so they do not use the Creative Commons name, or otherwise stand apart.'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: The majority (albeit a diminishing majority) of CC works are NC-licensed

'''''NC Proposal No. 4:''''' '''Eliminate one or more (but not all) of the NC licenses from the 4.0 license suite.'''
*'''BY-NC''' [Note: please visit the [[4.0/Treatment of adaptations]] page to comment on this proposal.]
*'''BY-NC-SA'''
**Pros: BY-NC-SA and BY-SA are incompatible, creating two corralled reciprocal commons.
** Cons:
** Other comments:
*'''BY-NC-ND'''
**Pros:
** Cons:
** Other comments: The most conservative CC licence and potentially a 'stepping stone' to more liberal licences.

'''''NC Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Change the definition of NonCommercial in the licenses to match the wishes of the most conservative NC licensors.''' (e.g., deleting clause specifying that digital file sharing is a noncommercial use)
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: I spun this off from Proposal No 1, because as far as I can tell the example went further than the proposal (the proposal was to clarify the NC definition to be conservative; the example is about deleting a pre-existing part of the NC definition)

'''''NC Proposal No. 6:''''' '''Explicitly state that NC licences are non-free, non-libre and non-open licences'''
* Pros: Because 'free' and 'open' are publicly recognised terms with value, making it clear that NC works are not free and open will encourage the use of other licences.
* Cons: The terms 'open content','open gaming' and 'open educational resources' have been used broadly to include NC content.
* Other comments: A milder form of Proposal 3

'''''NC Proposal No. 7:''''' '''Replace/transform NonCommercial license with/to NonProfit-License'''
* Pros:
* Cons:

'''''NC Proposal No. 8:''''' '''Provide ways for users to clarify what questionable uses they are willing to allow '''
* Pros: Removes the ambiguity of the NC license
* Cons: Creates a splinted mess of potentially non-compatible sub-licenses.
* Other comments: In educational use, I often want to have CC-NC licensed materials printed through print-on-demand companies. It is unclear whether this is commercial or not, since the printing company is certainly making a profit. It would be nice if the copyright holder could specify whether they allow cases like this.
This may fall under <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_change_the_terms_of_a_CC_license_or_waive_some_of_its_conditions.3F">the waiver options available to licensors</a> and therefore be unnecessary. ("A licensor may always grant more permissions than are granted by our licenses. The 3.0 licenses specifically contemplate a waiver or consent as long as the waiver or consent is in writing and signed.") In the example above, adding some text about the waiver conditions next to the CC license should suffice.

''Please add other NC proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''
* Presentation by Mike Linksvayer at the CC Global Summit on 17 September, 2011: [http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/the-definition-and-future-of-noncommercial "The definition and future of noncommercial"] presented some very high level history, considerations, and options for NC in the 4.0 suite.
* Hagedorn G, Mietchen D, Morris R, Agosti D, Penev L, Berendsohn W, Hobern D (2011) [http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2189/abstract/creative-commons-licenses-and-the-non-commercial-condition-implications-for-the-re-use-of-biodiversity-information Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information.] ZooKeys 150: 127-149. (Authors recommend CC rename/rebrand and add visual and explanatory cues to the NC licenses to distinguish them from fully open licenses, and to pursue clarification of the NC definition, referencing upcoming 4.0 work.)
* [[Defining Noncommercial|Defining “Noncommercial”: A Study of How the Online Population Understands “Noncommercial Use”]] was published 14 September, 2009; particularly relevant sections include Section 4.1, Import for Creative Commons Noncommercial Licenses, and Section 4.2, Recommendations on Using CC Noncommercial Licenses.
* [http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License] is the most widely read critique of the NC term as non-free/open.
* Article by Joshua Benton from the Nieman Journalism Lab dated 8 November, 2011: [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/11/wired-releases-images-via-creative-commons-but-reopens-a-debate-on-what-noncommercial-means/ "Wired releases images via Creative Commons but reopens debate on what "noncommercial" means."]
* [http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/09/01/paley-vs-doctorow/ A debate] between free culture advocate Nina Paley and Creative Commons pioneer Cory Doctorow over the NonCommercial licences. Of particular note is Doctorow's distinction between 'industrial' and 'personal' use.

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:NonCommercial]]