How does Creative Commons define non-commercial (NC)?
Non-commercial (NC) is one of the clauses that can be selected into a CC license.
3 Answers
If you look at the actual license for BY-NC 3.0 here: http://creativecommons.or
It says:
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.
We realize that people have different views on what non-commercial SHOULD mean. We will review this clause again when we upgrade the agreements. However, it should be noted that while 2/3 of the licenses people choose have the NC restriction, I don't personally know of any significant issue resulting from the NC ambiguity. Basically, as with HTML, when you write it be strict, when you interpret it, be liberal. In other words, if someone is using an NC license, it means that they are sensitive to commercial exploitation. When in doubt, ask. Conversely, if you're really worried about commercial exploitation or someone using your work in a way that they might not think is commercial, but that you would, don't use a CC license.
If someone wants to rip off your work, they will rip it off whether you have a CC license or not. If someone is going to care what you think, they'll look at the license and the NC choice will signal that you have a sensitivity that they should be aware of. Just remember that technically, if you read the license above, you could interpret it to mean that your image could be used on a blog with ads or shared on a commercial site such as YouTube if those ads are supporting the site/infrastructure. For instance, putting money into a copy machine doesn't make the photocopy of some page a "commercial use" transaction but the money is just supporting the infrastructure.
It says:
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.
We realize that people have different views on what non-commercial SHOULD mean. We will review this clause again when we upgrade the agreements. However, it should be noted that while 2/3 of the licenses people choose have the NC restriction, I don't personally know of any significant issue resulting from the NC ambiguity. Basically, as with HTML, when you write it be strict, when you interpret it, be liberal. In other words, if someone is using an NC license, it means that they are sensitive to commercial exploitation. When in doubt, ask. Conversely, if you're really worried about commercial exploitation or someone using your work in a way that they might not think is commercial, but that you would, don't use a CC license.
If someone wants to rip off your work, they will rip it off whether you have a CC license or not. If someone is going to care what you think, they'll look at the license and the NC choice will signal that you have a sensitivity that they should be aware of. Just remember that technically, if you read the license above, you could interpret it to mean that your image could be used on a blog with ads or shared on a commercial site such as YouTube if those ads are supporting the site/infrastructure. For instance, putting money into a copy machine doesn't make the photocopy of some page a "commercial use" transaction but the money is just supporting the infrastructure.
512 Views
The Creative Commons FAQ recognizes that the answer to this question is not always obvious. "Determining what does and doesn't constitute commercial use is not always easy."
See http://wiki.creativecommo
The FAQ goes on to recommend a study that dives into the question a bit more deeply. This study suggested that "uses that earn users money or involve online advertising [are] commercial, while uses by organizations, by individuals, or for charitable purposes are less commercial but not decidedly noncommercial. Similarly, uses by for-profit companies are typically considered more commercial." The study goes on to note that there are areas where classification can be difficult.
See http://wiki.creativecommo
See http://wiki.creativecommo
The FAQ goes on to recommend a study that dives into the question a bit more deeply. This study suggested that "uses that earn users money or involve online advertising [are] commercial, while uses by organizations, by individuals, or for charitable purposes are less commercial but not decidedly noncommercial. Similarly, uses by for-profit companies are typically considered more commercial." The study goes on to note that there are areas where classification can be difficult.
See http://wiki.creativecommo
As a person as likely to use other people's work (I'm a mashup artist) as to Have his own work be used, I interpret this in practice to mean that I am free to use anything I want as long as I don't profit from it. Since I never make any money from my work that means I can do pretty much whatever I want. Of course, I am in no way claiming that this is a correct or legal interpretation, it just leaves me feeling morally clean knowing I didn't make any $$ at anyone else's expense. In the cases where I may - or someone else may - actually makes some $$ (I am currently working on a project that will be published by an academic press) I am of course asking for permissions and paying the fees, etc.
