[okfn-discuss] NC licences [forked]

[Aaron Wolf]

Harry, you are completely missing my point.

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "I don't want some random multi-national to use my photos in an
>> advertising campaign without my permission."
>>
>> I don't want to get this off track, but this is one of the main misguided
>> ideas of NC-advocates. It would be WONDERFUL if some multi-national you
>> don't like used your CC-BY-SA photos. There is no better way for you to
>> have access and le.gal ability to do whatever you like with their ad! You
>> could criticize it and get much more press for "the photographer from that
>> ad disapproves of this business!" than for "some random person disapproves
>> of this business".
>>
>
> No. I don't want the ad to exist in the first place. I don't want some
> multi-national to make *any* money, and I don't want money made from the
> ad. Period. I don't care about press or attempting to commercialize my
> personal photos.
>
>


Harry, I am completely certain that you do NOT hate ads any more than I do.
I am completely against our rampant advertising culture, against
corporate-controlled economy, and we agree fully about the problem here.

The issue is: we both have the goal of stopping this corporate control and
their manipulative ads and fostering an open and direct community of real
and ethical people. The difference is: I'm helping our mutual cause by
using CC-BY-SA, and you are *hurting* our cause by using NC!

It's this simple: your use of NC has ZERO effect on whether your photo is
used in the ad. You are making an argument based on your own imagined
fantasy instead of reality. Find me *one single example* of a CC-BY-SA item
being used in some sleazy corporate ad! Just ONE. The fact is, from all the
evidence I know, SA is enough to stop such uses.

Now, your NC license can still be used, of course, by non-profit
non-commercial organizations who you completely disagree with. CC-NC
material is perfectly open to use by racist political organizations in
their ads. In this case, SA would be *more* of a deterrent.


>
>> Seriously, the SA is the copyleft part and it is more than adequate here.
>> Exxon doesn't want to license their ads with CC-BY-SA. They aren't going to
>> use your SA photos anyway. It would be wonderful if they did because it
>> would give you more power, but they won't. Instead, they'll make just as
>> good an ad with someone else's photo. You choosing NC does absolutely
>> nothing to stop them and their ads.
>>
>
> Any smart company such as Google realizes its a better business model to
> make people do work for free to access supposedly free content than to
> actually pay them (traditional businesses)
> or attempt to make them pay for access (so-called "creative industries")
>
>>
>>
I hate this just as much as you do. I agree COMPLETELY. Tell me how your
use of NC licenses is doing anything helpful to address this problem.



> On the other hand, if you choose NC, you DO stop ME from doing completely
>> non-commercial work where I make creative educational videos using
>> Wikimedia content and other photos. I would like to use your photos maybe.
>> The NC license stops me even though I'm not doing *anything* commercial. In
>> other words, what you intend from the license is not working; the NC
>> license is failing to achieve what you want. It doesn't stop anything you
>> want to stop and it only hurts people you don't want to hurt. And it is a
>> perfect example of the sort of restriction that seems benign but actually
>> destroys the not-yet-named thing that Peter is talking about.
>>
>
> Again, wrong. I have the right to tell even non-commercial educational
> video makers to not use my data. Have  you read the WEF report "Personal
> Data as a New Asset Class"? Do you understand what "asset" means?
>
>
If you use CC-NC, you are giving permission for any non-commercial use. You
have the right to stop non-commercial educational video makers only if you
use CC-ND or not any CC license at all. If you're advocating against the
use of any license that allows derivatives, then that's a totally different
discussion.



>
>> Here's my popular non-commercial video:
>> http://blog.wolftune.com/2011/07/brain-parts-song-video.html
>> Is it good that I had to skip all sorts of nice photos when making this?
>> NC was not helpful, it made my project harder. I am grateful for all the
>> people who realized the value of sticking to just CC-BY or CC-BY-SA,
>> otherwise this project would not have been possible.
>>
>> What I'm trying to get at is this: don't just defend a license because
>> you like the intent. Licenses aren't just about intention. A well-intended
>> license can be effectively failing, and that's the case with NC. It matters
>> not that NC *sounds* like what feels right to you, it matters that it
>> doesn't do what you want. The fact that we also might disagree about
>> commercial uses and whether they are ok or not is a side issue.
>>
>>
> I was using NC as an example. Perhaps legally it needs better wording to
> define NC. However, you are missing my main point, which is the "open data
> rhetoric with no restrictions" is seriously misguided. The point is the
> communities who produce data should be able to both offer access and
> restrict the data as they see fit according to their ethical principles.
> So, academic articles funded my public money should be available to the
> public free of charge. My personal photos should not end up in either an
> advertisement or educational video without my permission. And in both
> cases, I think payment could be considered reasonable to say the least.
>
>
Ah, ok we agree mostly. I would like your photos not to be allowed in
manipulative ads also. But I don't want such a limited result as that these
ads simply have to find other photos (which they surely can easily enough),
I want these ads to go away entirely. Trying to block them from using your
photos isn't helping to make them go away.

You can continue to live in a principled fantasy world in which the only
thing that matters is what *ought* to be, or you could look at reality as
it stands.

Here's reality: I make a very modest living teaching private music lessons.
I have no salary. I spent two dedicated week putting together an
educational an entertaining video for a song I wrote. I used images from
Wikimedia mostly, and struggled to find good photos that were licensed
compatibly, which means CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. I uploaded the video to
Archive.org but few people saw it, so I also put it on YouTube (damn their
functional monopoly!). It is now nearing 40,000 views and has been
appreciated by people around the world. I chose not to monetize it because
I HATE ads and would have no control over what they are. I use Adblocker
and encourage everyone else to do the same. I never made a penny from this
video.

You're saying I should have to pay the people whose photos I used?? Or ask
permission from the dozens of people whose photos I used and wait to see if
they ever reply? What if someone's photo is an adaptation of another photo?
I have to ask everyone at all levels for permission? I did go out of my way
to notify everyone and tell them that I used their photo in my video anyway!

What you are advocating is a world in which I couldn't have practically
made my video at all. I couldn't make my own complex images of brain
anatomy!! I required open access via Wikimedia.

If you want to push for legislation to thoroughly regulate or outright ban
most advertising, FINE WITH ME. What you're advocating in reality is that
we hurt the public just because you imagine some side effect of something
you don't like that you don't even know is ever real.

With all due respect,
Aaron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20130205/648ef832/attachment.html>