4.0/NonCommercial - Revision history

CCID-shinchpearson at 17:32, 10 September 2013

2013-09-10T17:32:52Z

Kat Walsh: fmt

2013-05-20T19:05:05Z

fmt

Kat Walsh: header

2013-05-20T16:43:58Z

header

Kat Walsh: collapse drafts 1 and 2; provide subheads

2013-05-20T16:43:11Z

collapse drafts 1 and 2; provide subheads

Kat Walsh: /* Proposals for 4.0 */ treatment of proposals

2013-02-14T17:31:09Z

‎Proposals for 4.0: treatment of proposals

Kat Walsh: + draft 3

2013-02-14T03:31:35Z

+ draft 3

Kat Walsh: collapse all the things! OK, some of the things.

2012-08-30T19:57:57Z

collapse all the things! OK, some of the things.

Kat Walsh: /* Proposals for 4.0 */ start putting in collapsible sections for concluded proposals

2012-08-30T19:49:32Z

‎Proposals for 4.0: start putting in collapsible sections for concluded proposals

Aurelia Schultz at 17:50, 1 August 2012

2012-08-01T17:50:10Z

CCID-diane peters at 03:34, 1 August 2012

2012-08-01T03:34:08Z

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 |}
-{{Infobox|
+{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
 ===Draft 3===
 The word “private” has been removed from the definition of NonCommercial, so that it now reads “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” This is not intended to be a change in meaning; however, we welcome feedback from those who believe that it will have a substantive effect.
 Proposal 11, renaming the license to “Commercial Rights Reserved”, was considered by CC. After a long period of internal, affiliate, and public consultation, we have decided not to pursue this proposal: the name of the license will remain unchanged. More details are available in the outcome statement [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2013-February/008330.html on the mailing list].
 }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{4.0 Issue}}
 ==Treatment in Drafts==
 {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
-! (expand to read)
+! (expand to read Draft 1 treatment)
 |-
+|
-{{Infobox |'''How issue is addressed in 4.0 draft no. 1:''' In this initial draft, we chose not to alter the definition of NonCommercial. While many community members have expressed concern about the ambiguity of the license definition, we do not believe there is a sufficiently clear or compelling alternative presented yet meriting a change.  We look forward to receiving more input about the definition of NC and related proposals during this public comment period.
+{{Infobox|
 Please note we have changed the structure of the NonCommercial condition slightly by defining NonCommercial at the beginning of the license (rather than defining commercial purposes in the conditions section as in v. 3.0). This is a shift in format only and is not designed to affect the scope of the NC licenses in any way. }}
 |}
 {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
-! (expand to read)
+! (expand to read Draft 2 treatment)
 |-
+|
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 {| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
 |valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
-'''Draft 2 Treatment:''' After much consideration, we are settled on preserving the existing 3.0 treatment of NonCommercial for 4.0.  This will be a disappointment for some, a relief for others.  However flawed the current definition may be, it is one that our community has become accustomed to and relies upon.  A proposed alternative would have to be extremely compelling to justify disrupting those expectations, and though those made had many merits, they fell short of that difficult standard.  Upon close review, as much as the proposed alternatives attempt to provide additional clarity around particular uses, they simultaneously introduce new, additional layers of uncertainty for licensors and licensees.  Staying with the existing provision has the added benefit of preserving consistency in scope between versions, an important feature for those using a 3.0 NC license and counting on the limits it contains.  This said, we want to honor a long-standing promise made over the course of many license versions, and intend to clarify what NC means outside of the license where possible.  We will be working toward that clarification within a short period following the launch of 4.0, if not sooner.
+===Draft 2===
 Now, we think the better course is to look strategically at the NC licenses and explore in earnest the several [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial#Proposals_for_4.0 proposals] relating to branding, communication and similar.  Look for those proposals to be framed for discussion shortly, and the prior discussion threads on these topics re-started.
@@ Line 28: / Line 29: @@
 |}
 ===Draft 3===
 The word “private” has been removed from the definition of NonCommercial, so that it now reads “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” This is not intended to be a change in meaning; however, we welcome feedback from those who believe that it will have a substantive effect.

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 <!-- provide a short summary of the issue below -->
 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.'''

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{4.0 Issue}}
+==Treatment in Drafts==
 {{Infobox |'''How issue is addressed in 4.0 draft no. 1:''' In this initial draft, we chose not to alter the definition of NonCommercial. While many community members have expressed concern about the ambiguity of the license definition, we do not believe there is a sufficiently clear or compelling alternative presented yet meriting a change.  We look forward to receiving more input about the definition of NC and related proposals during this public comment period.
 Please note we have changed the structure of the NonCommercial condition slightly by defining NonCommercial at the beginning of the license (rather than defining commercial purposes in the conditions section as in v. 3.0). This is a shift in format only and is not designed to affect the scope of the NC licenses in any way. }}
 {| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
@@ Line 14: / Line 26: @@
 |}
 {{Infobox|'''Draft 3 Treatment''':

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 * Other comments: Question; can the wishes of the most conservative of NC licensors be captured with legal precision?
 : This may not be necessary. Strictly, the license is very conservative, due to the wide-ranging consequences of using "commercial advantages". The only necessary action is to clarify and explain this better to avoid the common misunderstandings like confusing non-profit commercial activities (where using a work for free does give the non-profit entity commercial advantages) with non-commercial itself.
 |}
@@ Line 66: / Line 67: @@
 ** NOTE: If we clarify the definition in 4.0, it will only apply to those applying the 4.0 license. Those licensors will be aware of and bound by the new definitions (as well as all revised license terms). It won't affect how the NC definition is interpreted from prior versions. In the case of remixes of NC-licensed works from prior versions, multiple definitions may apply. The practical result in that situation would be that licensees would comply with the more restrictive prior definition. Note that this concern about remixes will apply to all proposed changes in 4.0.
 * 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. Proposal 10 seeks to define NonCommercial to ensure legal certainty. Question; can the wishes of the most permissive of NC licensors be captured with legal precision?
 |}
@@ Line 77: / Line 79: @@
 * Other comments: The majority (albeit a diminishing majority) of CC works are NC-licensed
 * Practical proposal for "otherwise stand apart": change the name and code from Noncommercial/NC to "Commercial Rights Reserved"/"CRR". This expresses more closely the actual terms of the present NC license and indicates that the use of this license is for those who intend to commercially sell their works, rather than the "commercially not interested ones" (which currently may often identify themselves with NC). This proposal is discussed in detail on the license mailing list [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006844.html here].
+'''Treatment in 4.0:''' CC has decided to keep the NC licenses under the CC name. However, we will be improving messaging and information around the use and meaning of NC.
 '''''NC Proposal No. 4:'''''  '''Eliminate one or more (but not all) of the NC licenses from the 4.0 license suite.'''
@@ Line 89: / Line 91: @@
 ** Cons:
 ** Other comments: The most conservative CC licence and potentially a 'stepping stone' to more liberal licences. Question: what use cases have emerged for By-NC-ND?
 {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
@@ Line 105: / Line 108: @@
 * Cons: The terms 'open content','open gaming' and 'open educational resources' have been used broadly to include NC content. The battle about the meaning of open is just beginning as it is increasingly being appropriated by monopolists for example the publishing companies that claim that their ARR works are ''gratis open access''. Unlikely to satisfy those who think that NC licenses should be eliminated.
 * Other comments: A milder form of Proposal 3
+'''Treatment in 4.0:''' CC will be improving messaging and information around the use and meaning of NC, including making greater distinction between the openness of the licenses with and without the NC and ND conditions.
 '''''NC Proposal No. 7:'''''  '''Replace/transform NonCommercial license with/to NonProfit-License'''
 * Pros:
 * Cons: Non Profit may be impossible to define with legal precision. Incompatibility with works licensed under NC licenses.User confusion about the difference between two similar but not identical terms.
@@ Line 117: / Line 121: @@
 * 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. Creating an automated waiver system might be a more useful approach.
 {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
@@ Line 142: / Line 147: @@
 * Other comments:
 **Creative Commons has an opportunity to become a leader in the OER space here and should take hold of it and run with it.
 |}
@@ Line 156: / Line 162: @@
 *Cons: motivated by legal certainty rather than the sentiments of a user community, it will eliminate a topic of endless discussion from cc community lists, there is the possibility of incompatibility with work licensed under previous versions of the NC license but then how much are NC works remixed?
 *Other Comments: Specific proposal discussed on license mailing list [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006867.html here].
 |}
@@ Line 174: / Line 181: @@
 *Cons: Time-limiting causes minor problems for websites like blogs where the entire website carries a single license (rather than individual works). However, the owners of the site can change the license each year, giving an increased year.
 *Other Comments: Other proposals relating to time-limited conditions are addressed [[4.0/Sandbox#Time-based_switch_to_more_freedom | here]].
 {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
@@ Line 196: / Line 204: @@
 *Cons: Similar to those listed above for proposal 9, "shifts definitional uncertainty from problems with defining non-commercial to the even harder problem of defining education/teaching." And proposal 2.
 |}

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:31, 14 February 2013
Line 14:		Line 14:

	\|}		\|}
		+
		+	{{Infobox\|'''Draft 3 Treatment''':
		+
		+	The word “private” has been removed from the definition of NonCommercial, so that it now reads “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” This is not intended to be a change in meaning; however, we welcome feedback from those who believe that it will have a substantive effect.
		+
		+	Proposal 11, renaming the license to “Commercial Rights Reserved”, was considered by CC. After a long period of internal, affiliate, and public consultation, we have decided not to pursue this proposal: the name of the license will remain unchanged. More details are available in the outcome statement [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2013-February/008330.html on the mailing list].
		+	}}

	<!-- provide a short summary of the issue below -->		<!-- provide a short summary of the issue below -->

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 ** Other comments: The most conservative CC licence and potentially a 'stepping stone' to more liberal licences. Question: what use cases have emerged for By-NC-ND?
+{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
 '''''NC Proposal No. 5:''''' [deleted and combined with NC Proposal No. 1 to avoid redundancies]
 * Pros:
 * Cons:
 * Other comments:
@@ Line 107: / Line 111: @@
 * 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. Creating an automated waiver system might be a more useful approach.
 This proposal is explained on the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006436.html cc-licenses list in a post of Dec. 12, 2011] by Brian Carver. The proposed language defining the "educational use" exception is:
@@ Line 126: / Line 135: @@
 * Other comments:
 **Creative Commons has an opportunity to become a leader in the OER space here and should take hold of it and run with it.
 Proposed Definition: '''commercial use is the transactional use of the work; that is selling, bartering, or letting the copyright work or including the work in a paid for advertisement (and the like)'''
 *Pros:  clear, simple, certain,applicable to every possible situation, all over the world. Defining the term non commercial has given rise to a great deal of debate. By contrast all legal systems have definitions of sale, letting, bartering and the like.
 *Cons: motivated by legal certainty rather than the sentiments of a user community, it will eliminate a topic of endless discussion from cc community lists, there is the possibility of incompatibility with work licensed under previous versions of the NC license but then how much are NC works remixed?
 *Other Comments: Specific proposal discussed on license mailing list [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006867.html here].
+|}
 '''''NC Proposal No.11''''' '''Rename NC to CRR to clarify real function plus reduce incompatibility by providing NC/CRR term only time-limited.'''
@@ Line 153: / Line 168: @@
 *Other Comments: Other proposals relating to time-limited conditions are addressed [[4.0/Sandbox#Time-based_switch_to_more_freedom | here]].
 Proposed language:
@@ Line 169: / Line 189: @@
 *Cons: Similar to those listed above for proposal 9, "shifts definitional uncertainty from problems with defining non-commercial to the even harder problem of defining education/teaching." And proposal 2.

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 == Proposals for 4.0 ==
 ''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''
+{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
-'''''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, and/or deleting clause specifying that digital file sharing is a noncommercial use)
+!'''''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, and/or deleting clause specifying that digital file sharing is a noncommercial use)'''
 * Pros: This is the only possible way to clarify the license. Licensors otherwise can claim they did not intend the liberal rewording. As a consequence, any licensee of a potential "liberal-NC-definition" would face with unmanagable legal risks.
 * Cons: Potentially limits the utility of NC-licensed works.
 * Other comments: Question; can the wishes of the most conservative of NC licensors be captured with legal precision?
 : This may not be necessary. Strictly, the license is very conservative, due to the wide-ranging consequences of using "commercial advantages". The only necessary action is to clarify and explain this better to avoid the common misunderstandings like confusing non-profit commercial activities (where using a work for free does give the non-profit entity commercial advantages) with non-commercial itself.
-'''''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)
+''(discussion of this proposal is concluded: expand to read this proposal)''
 * Pros: Potentially increases the utility of NC-licensed works.
 * Cons: See No. 1 above. Every liberal use of the license would have to validate whether the work has been relicensed from a 3.0 license, and if so, contact every earlier contributor to find out whether they agree with a more liberal definition.
 ** NOTE: If we clarify the definition in 4.0, it will only apply to those applying the 4.0 license. Those licensors will be aware of and bound by the new definitions (as well as all revised license terms). It won't affect how the NC definition is interpreted from prior versions. In the case of remixes of NC-licensed works from prior versions, multiple definitions may apply. The practical result in that situation would be that licensees would comply with the more restrictive prior definition. Note that this concern about remixes will apply to all proposed changes in 4.0.
 * 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. Proposal 10 seeks to define NonCommercial to ensure legal certainty. Question; can the wishes of the most permissive of NC licensors be captured with legal precision?
+|}
 '''''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.'''