Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

Photography

2012-03-06T22:30:07Z

Sanglorian: /* Related resources */ Added References

The internet and technology have changed how people access images, and photographers are responding by employing new methods to reach audiences. These methods include personal websites, social media tools, photo-sharing platforms and communities, and tools such as Creative Commons licenses that enable easy sharing and reuse of creative works.

CC licenses are a flexible way to share images while building on the strong foundation of traditional copyright law. Simply put, Creative Commons licenses allow the shift from “all rights reserved” to “some rights reserved,” enabling you to share your images under terms of your own choosing. This gives you control over distribution, and the non-exclusivity of the licenses means you can retain all commercial rights if desired.

[[#Photographers_using_CC_licenses|Photographers using CC licenses]] gain new audiences for their work on photo-sharing platforms like [http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons Flickr] and communities like [http://www.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]. Mohamed Nanabhay, Head of Online, Al Jazeera English, [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/18213 writes]:
:“When launching our [CC] repository, we had thought that it would be a key resource for anyone producing content on the war and that it would primarily be used by other news organisations and documentary filmmakers. What we saw was both surprising and delightful. Soon after posting our first video, Wikipedia editors had extracted images to enhance the encyclopedia entries on the War on Gaza. Soon thereafter educators, filmmakers, video game developers, aid agencies and music video producers all used and built upon our footage.”

Wikipedia is a heavily-trafficked website with over 400 million unique visitors a month. Flickr contains over 200 million CC-licensed photos, establishing it as the Web’s single largest source of CC-licensed content.

In 2008, DigitalPhotoPro published an [http://www.digitalphotopro.com/business/creative-commons.html article on the use of CC licenses by professional photographers] with advice for those thinking of using CC themselves.

==Photographers using CC licenses==

===[[The_Power_of_Open/Text#Jonathan_Worth|Jonathan Worth]]===
:“Creative Commons enables me to use existing architecture really smoothly and to address the digital natives’ social media habits. The mode of information is the same, but the mode of distribution has changed. We don’t have all the answers, but CC lets me choose my ﬂavor and helps me take advantage of the things working against me.”

British photographer Jonathan Worth’s work hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London. He teaches photography at Coventry University in the U.K. He has photographed actors Colin Firth, Rachel Hunter, Jude Law and Heath Ledger. He is also one of an emerging group of photographers experimenting with sustainable working practices for professional image makers in the digital age. Jonathan Worth has been featured in:
*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8623680/How-the-Power-of-Open-can-benefit-photographers.html The Telegraph] - How the Power of Open can benefit photographers
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13961051 BBC News] - "Photographer Jonathan Worth explained that Creative Commons allowed him to sell his work for commercial use while still giving it free to individuals who wanted it for other reasons."
*[http://thepowerofopen.org/ The Power of Open] - Stories of creators sharing knowledge, art, & data using Creative Commons

===[[Case_Studies/Lan_Bui|Lan Bui]]===
<div class="smimg">{{#show: Case_Studies/Lan_Bui|?Image Header|link=none}}
Lan Bui "makes media." From photography of tech celebrities (Veronica Belmont, Zadi Diaz, Casey McKinnon) and The Ninja to videos for professionals and events (Comic Con and Pixelodeon), Lan (with help from his brother Vu) makes them all from start to finish. Lan echoes the thoughts of other artists using Creative Commons; the idea that your work is, in a way, an advertisement for yourself and future work. Lan expresses this in this way: "I think that people pay me for my time and talent, not for the actual images I deliver."
</div>

===[[Case_Studies/Monkeyc.net|Monkeyc.net]]===
<div class="smimg">{{#show: Case_Studies/Monkeyc.net|?Image Header|link=none}}
Monkeyc.net is the moniker of John Harvey, a Brisbane-based former photojournalist who licenses his Flickr photo stream under Creative Commons. John is an active member of the Flickr community, having first uploaded a photo on 26 September 2004 and now sporting a collection of close to 1,000 images, and encourages others to engage likewise. Several of John’s photographs have been featured on Flickr’s ‘Explore’ page, as an indication of their popularity in the Flickr community.
</div>

===Vinoth Chandar===
Vinoth Chandar is a professional photographer who releases many of his photographs under the [[Creative Commons Attribution]] licence, saying that "I use [the] Attribution Creative Commons licence for all my photos because I want everybody to use my photo and credit me ... This way, my photos reach every corner of the world without any effort from my side except taking the photos and uploading it to Flickr."<ref>http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-12/16/creative-commons-gallery</ref>

One example he used of the exposure provided by free culture licensing was the use of one of his photos for the cover of a popular Italian magazine. "I am an Indian and how else in the world can an Indian photographer expect his photo to be published in an Italian magazine? CC licence made this possible."<ref>http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-12/16/creative-commons-gallery</ref>

==Enforceability of CC licenses in photography==
CC licenses have been upheld in several [[Case_Law|court cases]] around the world. A few of these cases pertain specifically to CC-licensed images.

*In [[Curry_v._Audax |Curry v. Audax]], Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and one of the pioneers of podcasting, published photos onto his Flickr account under a BY-NC-SA license. A Dutch tabloid reprinted four of the photos in a story about the Curry family's public persona verses real private life. Curry sued the tabloid for violating the portrait rights of his family and for copyright violation over the improper user of his Flickr photos. The Dutch court held that, in the future, the tabloid could not use any of the photos from Flickr in the future unless under the terms of the photos' CC license or with permission from Curry.
*In [[Gerlach_vs._DVU|Gerlach vs. DVU]], Gerlach took a picture of the German politician Thilo Sarrazin at a public event and published it online under the Creative Commons license BY SA 3.0 Unported. Later the DVU, a German political party used the picture on their website without the plaintiff's name, the license notice or any other requirement of the license. The applicant sent a notice and takedown letter to which the party didn't react. Subsequently the applicant sought preliminary injunction before the Disctrict Court of Berlin against the unauthorized publication of the picture. The District Court of Berlin granted the injunction because the applicant had successfully established prima-facie evidence of authorship, of the licensing and of the breach of the license.
*In [[TA_3560/09,_3561/09,_Avi_Re%27uveni_v._Mapa_inc._%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C:_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94,_%D7%91%D7%99%D7%94%D7%9E%22%D7%A9_%D7%90%D7%9B%D7%A3_%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%99%D7%99%D7%98%D7%99%D7%91_%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A1 |Avi Re’uveni v. Mapa inc.]], plaintiffs uploaded photographs to Flickr and and offered them under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND license. The defendant made a collage from the plaintiffs’ and other photographs and sold them without attribution. The court found the defendant guilty of copyright infringement. The defendant claimed ignorance of the copyright and license, but the court found that this did not matter.

==Photo-sharing sites that have enabled CC licenses==

===[[Case_Studies/Flickr|Flickr]]===
<div class="smimg">{{#show: Case_Studies/Flickr|?Image Header|link=none}}
Flickr was one of the first major online communities to incorporate Creative Commons licensing options into its user interface, giving photographers around the world the easy ability to share photos on terms of their choosing. As the Flickr community grew, so did the number of CC-licensed images — currently there are well over 200 million on the site — establishing Flickr as the Web’s single largest source of CC-licensed content.
</div>

===[[Case_Studies/DeviantART|DeviantART]]===
<div class="smimg">{{#show: Case_Studies/DeviantART|?Image Header|link=none}}
deviantART is an online community dedicated to showcasing art as prints, videos and literature. CC license options are built into deviantArt's UI, allowing users to set the permissions they want their works to carry. Naturally, different users choose different options for their works, including All Rights Reserved.
</div>

===[http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/22882 Fotopedia]===
Fotopedia is a breathtaking application for the iPhone and iPad. The app builds on the concept of a coffee table book, updating and enhancing the browsing experience for the web. This project is possible thanks to Creative Commons, as over 18,000 of the pictures in Fotopedia Heritage book are under one of the CC licenses. The pictures come from all around the world; as individual photographers and organizations license their high quality photos under Creative Commons, the book will only grow as a community contributed and shareable resource.

===[[Case_Studies/National_Library_of_Australia_'Click_and_Flick'|National Library of Australia: 'Click and Flick']]===
<div class="smimg">{{#show: Case_Studies/National_Library_of_Australia_'Click_and_Flick'|?Image Header|link=none}}
'Click and Flick' is a National Library of Australia (NLA) initiative to open their online pictorial gateway, PictureAustralia, to contributions from the Australian public. PictureAustralia encourages people to make their material available on the archive under the CC licenses, as part of two dedicated Flickr image pools: ‘PictureAustralia: Ourtown’ and ‘PictureAustralia: People, Places and Events’.
</div>

===[[Case_Studies/Newsbank_Image|Newsbank Image]]===
<div class="smimg">{{#show: Case_Studies/Newsbank_Image|?Image Header|link=none}}
Newsbank Image is one of South Korea's largest and most comprehensive photo-archives. The photograph archive website provides images produced by Media companies, photographers as well as web-friendly versions containing watermarks, original images, all which maintain the marking of original creators. Users can choose to upload their photos under CC licenses.
</div>

===[[Case_Studies/Culture.si|Culture.si]]===
<div class="smimg">{{#show: Case_Studies/Culture.si|?Image Header|link=none}}
A comprehensive online guide to Slovene culture, Culture.si covers contemporary art, culture, and heritage in Slovenia. Over 2,300 articles in English and the fastest growing independent free image bank (currently over 1,500 images) are offered for reuse under Creative Commons licenses.
</div>

==How To Publish photos in an online community==
One way to increase visibility and access to your photos is to share it with an existing community that has enabled CC licensing, making it easy for you to indicate the license along with other information, such as who to attribute. In addition, search engines like Google and Yahoo! will index your work as CC licensed if the metadata is properly attached. See [[Publish/Images]] for more info.

==Finding CC-licensed photos==
Thanks to the machine-readability of CC licenses, CC-licensed images can be found via:

*[http://images.google.com/advanced_image_search?hl=en Google Advanced Image Search] by specifying options under "Usage Rights"
*[http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/advanced?ei=UTF-8 Yahoo! Advanced Image Search] by specifying options under "Creative Commons License"
*[http://docs.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=179622 Google Docs], where Google Image Search has been integrated
*[http://search.creativecommons.org/ CC Search Portal], which is not a search engine, but a tool that offers convenient access to search services provided by independent organizations, such as Flickr, Google, and Wikimedia Commons (media repository for articles featured on Wikipedia).

==Related resources==
*[[Journalism|CC in Journalism]]
*[[CC_Factsheet|CC Factsheet]]

==References==
<references>

Photography

2012-03-06T22:28:55Z

Sanglorian: /* Photographers using CC licenses */ Added Vinoth Chandar

Commercial music

2012-03-03T12:22:50Z

Sanglorian: Added FOSsil Bank

The majority of music released under a CC license uses one of the licenses that [[Defining Noncommercial|prohbit commercial use]] (BY-NC, BY-NC-ND, BY-NC-SA). Below are some pointers to finding music that allows commercial use.

If your use also involves adapting the music (including syncing to video), you'll further have to exclude music under Attribution-NoDerivatives (BY-ND; which does allow commercial verbatim use), and either release your work under Attribution-ShareAlike (BY-SA) or also exclude music under that license. This leaves music under plain Attribution (BY) or in the public domain.

==Jamendo==

Browse Jamendo by license at http://jamendo.com/creativecommons/

One can also click "advanced search" on http://www.jamendo.com/albums to filter for albums that allow commercial use.

As of October 2010 Jamendo hosts [http://www.jamendo.com/en/albums?license_class=cc_standard&license_minrights=by+c+d+sa 7414 albums under BY-SA], [http://www.jamendo.com/en/albums?license_class=cc_standard&license_maxrights=sa&license_minrights=by+c+d 1607 albums under BY], and [http://www.jamendo.com/en/albums?license_class=cc_standard&license_maxrights=d&license_minrights=by+c 987 albums under BY-ND].

==SoundCloud==

[http://soundcloud.com/creativecommons SoundCloud's CC portal] features a search that allows filtering for tracks permitting commercial use and modification. As of October 2010 the site hosted [http://soundcloud.com/search?q[type]=&q[duration]=&q[cc_licensed]=1&q[commercial]=true&advanced=1 thousands of tracks permitting commercial use].

==ccMixter==

http://ccmixter.org/media/tags/attribution -- all tracks under a plain BY license. Add genre and other filters to the list by clicking '+' next to the desired filter on the right. As of October 2010, the site has nearly 5000 CC BY tracks.

http://ccmixter.org/media/playlist/browse/44 is a playlist of 100 tacks under a plain BY license chosen by the CC Creative Director in February, 20007.

==Free Music Archive==

[http://freemusicarchive.org/search/ FMA music search] allows filtering by permission. As of October 2010 the site hosts [http://freemusicarchive.org/search/?quicksearch=&search-artist=Artist&search-curator=&commercial=1 1627 tracks permitting commercial use].

==FOSsil Bank==

The [[FOSsil Bank]] has a page for [http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/category:music-libre free, libre and open music]. You can also view the [http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/category:music semi-libre music] page.

==Others==

Many other sites host some music permitting commercial use, http://archive.org and http://www.dogmazic.net in particular. Please add instructions here for finding only commerce-allowed music at these sites.

Everything at http://www.tribeofnoise.com is licensed under BY-SA, which of course permits commercial use.

Everything in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sound is under free licenses that permit commercial use or in the public domain.

[http://libre.fm Libre.fm] aggregates and tracks the popularity of music that allows both commercial and derivative use.

[http://www.kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/advanced.search.project Kompoz music project search] allows filtering for only music under BY or BY-SA.

[[Category:FAQ]]

4.0/NonCommercial

2011-12-15T00:46:23Z

Sanglorian: /* Relevant references */ Added Paley-Doctorow debate

{{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:

''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]]

Talk:4.0/NonCommercial

2011-12-14T08:38:17Z

Sanglorian: My reasoning

== Explaining my edits ==
Hi folks,

I split the first proposal because it described what it was doing as 'clarifying' the NC definition, but its example was actually changing the NC definition so something now considered NC would become commercial (specifically not-for-profit filesharing). If you think that's pedantry, feel free to roll them back into one proposal - I don't support either, I just wanted the language to be crystal clear.

--[[User:Sanglorian|Sanglorian]] 08:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

4.0/NonCommercial

2011-12-14T08:36:48Z

Sanglorian: /* Proposals for 4.0 */ I split one proposal in half and added another.

{{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

''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."]

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:NonCommercial]]