[okfn-discuss] NC licences [forked]

Wed Feb 6 08:53:14 UTC 2013

Hi Aaron, Harry,

Aaron, I mostly agree with you point of views. The SA license is 99,99% (if
not 100) enough to prevent reuse by commercial companies, and perhaps even
better. Before choosing the NC-license, I think you should also think about
if you have the resources to take legal actions as soon as somebody uses
your picture in a commercial way (which by accident, happens extremely
fast, the OKFN as a non-profit can't even put NC-pictures on their webpage
because there is money involved). In most cases, you as an author do not
have the time and money to take action, which makes the use of the
NC-license only restrictive to the public, which is a bad thing I think.

If you want to read more, we recently translated a great German document by
legal experts who go into detail about the NC-license and why it in most
cases does not make sense to make use of it. It can be found here:

http://openglam.org/2013/01/08/consequences-risks-and-side-effects-of-the-license-module-non-commercial-use-only/

All the best,

Joris

2013/2/6 Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com>

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
>

-- 
Joris Pekel
Community Coordinator
Open Knowledge Foundation
http://okfn.org
http://twitter.com/jpekel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20130206/e18927f5/attachment.html>