Hello everyone,
Just stumbled upon an page where Swiss collecting society SUISA lists things which they consider commercial use within CC NC licenses, as applied to works they have copyright on (delegated from authors who are their members). It's quite interesting and I think it is a very good example for advocating for fully free/libre licensing of works.
Here's the page: https://www.suisa.ch/en/members/authors/how-to-register-a-work/creative-comm...
The list of uses that they consider commercial use is quite interesting. For instance, it includes things like:
- involving a counterpart, of a financial or other nature, regardless of the beneficiary, title or grounds; - in exchange for other goods, whether or not the exchange generates direct or indirect revenues or gives rise to a payment of any nature whatsoever; - at places of work;
Best, Yury.
Yury
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Firstly, this isn't the right venue for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing, especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that permit commercial reuse. And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights owner from granting a full/libre licence if they want to for the works they own: so why would one need to advocate for it, here or anywhere else?
Thrapostibongles
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:42 AM Yury Bulka setthemfree@privacyrequired.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just stumbled upon an page where Swiss collecting society SUISA lists things which they consider commercial use within CC NC licenses, as applied to works they have copyright on (delegated from authors who are their members). It's quite interesting and I think it is a very good example for advocating for fully free/libre licensing of works.
Here's the page:
https://www.suisa.ch/en/members/authors/how-to-register-a-work/creative-comm...
The list of uses that they consider commercial use is quite interesting. For instance, it includes things like:
- involving a counterpart, of a financial or other nature, regardless of
the beneficiary, title or grounds;
- in exchange for other goods, whether or not the exchange generates direct or indirect revenues or gives rise to a payment of any nature whatsoever;
- at places of work;
Best, Yury.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Per "the Foundation has decided", it is not the foundation but our movement that has decided that we will mostly only allow licenses that allow commercial reuse.
By the way EN WP also allows fair use of certain images which may not permit commercial reuse in certain jurisdictions.
James
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 11:48 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Yury
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Firstly, this isn't the right venue for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing, especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that permit commercial reuse. And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights owner from granting a full/libre licence if they want to for the works they own: so why would one need to advocate for it, here or anywhere else?
Thrapostibongles
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:42 AM Yury Bulka < setthemfree@privacyrequired.com> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just stumbled upon an page where Swiss collecting society SUISA lists things which they consider commercial use within CC NC licenses, as applied to works they have copyright on (delegated from authors who are their members). It's quite interesting and I think it is a very good example for advocating for fully free/libre licensing of works.
Here's the page:
https://www.suisa.ch/en/members/authors/how-to-register-a-work/creative-comm...
The list of uses that they consider commercial use is quite interesting. For instance, it includes things like:
- involving a counterpart, of a financial or other nature, regardless of
the beneficiary, title or grounds;
- in exchange for other goods, whether or not the exchange generates direct or indirect revenues or gives rise to a payment of any nature whatsoever;
- at places of work;
Best, Yury.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In 2009 Creative Commons published "Defining Noncommercial", a 250-page report presenting survey data on what people consider to be "noncommercial". There is a copy of the report at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_NonCommercial_license
My summary of that report is that no one knows or cares what noncommercial means, except that it is better than completely closed but still should not be called free or open media. the majority of media using any CC license has an NC license. Creative Commons advises that they do not know how to define "noncommercial", and neither does anyone else. No one has any intent to clarify the situation. Creators and consumers demand the ambiguity as a feature. In practice, content creators imagine whatever they like when they apply the license to their work, and remixers imagine whatever they like when they reuse the work. The differences in imagination never get reconciled or checked, and typically no one cares.
There is no organization anywhere which has ever given a reasonable or thoughtful explanation for why they use NC licenses, where their concept matches any common understanding of what an NC license actually does.
Creative Commons calls NC licenses "non-free", which I think is a great place to start any conversation about them.
If anyone knows of an reasonable essay or statement justifying the use of these licenses then please share on the article's talk page.
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 6:17 AM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Per "the Foundation has decided", it is not the foundation but our movement that has decided that we will mostly only allow licenses that allow commercial reuse.
By the way EN WP also allows fair use of certain images which may not permit commercial reuse in certain jurisdictions.
James
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 11:48 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Yury
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Firstly, this isn't the right
venue
for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing, especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that
permit
commercial reuse. And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights
owner
from granting a full/libre licence if they want to for the works they
own:
so why would one need to advocate for it, here or anywhere else?
Thrapostibongles
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:42 AM Yury Bulka < setthemfree@privacyrequired.com> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just stumbled upon an page where Swiss collecting society SUISA lists things which they consider commercial use within CC NC licenses, as applied to works they have copyright on (delegated from authors who are their members). It's quite interesting and I think it is a very good example for advocating for fully free/libre licensing of works.
Here's the page:
https://www.suisa.ch/en/members/authors/how-to-register-a-work/creative-comm...
The list of uses that they consider commercial use is quite interesting. For instance, it includes things like:
- involving a counterpart, of a financial or other nature, regardless
of
the beneficiary, title or grounds;
- in exchange for other goods, whether or not the exchange generates direct or indirect revenues or gives rise to a payment of any nature whatsoever;
- at places of work;
Best, Yury.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
James
Per "the Foundation has decided", it is not the foundation but our movement that has decided that we will mostly only allow licenses that allow commercial reuse.
That doesn't seem quite right. The Foundation Board adopted a resolution on 23 March 2007, which is published at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy and cross-referred to on Wikipedia as still current, headed
This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Our_projects.
and statng
- All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.
So it seems to me that it is the Foundation not the movement that controls the licensing.
Thrapostibongles
We all agree NC licenses are poor. The WMF position was a reflection of the community's position at the time and this likely remains the community's position today.
If we as a movement however were to decide we want to allow NC video such that we can use Khan academy and Ted talks I doubt the WMF would veto it. We do count as non commercial. It would however decrease the incentive for these groups to drop NC but they are unlikely to regardless.
Not sure if the strategy process is considering this specific question.
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 09:41 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
James
Per "the Foundation has decided", it is not the foundation but our
movement
that has decided that we will mostly only allow licenses that allow commercial reuse.
That doesn't seem quite right. The Foundation Board adopted a resolution on 23 March 2007, which is published at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy and cross-referred to on Wikipedia as still current, headed
This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Our_projects.
and statng
- All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free
Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.
So it seems to me that it is the Foundation not the movement that controls the licensing.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Where would it fit in Strategy 2030? Advocacy?
Paulo
James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 20/05/2019 à(s) 05:41:
We all agree NC licenses are poor. The WMF position was a reflection of the community's position at the time and this likely remains the community's position today.
If we as a movement however were to decide we want to allow NC video such that we can use Khan academy and Ted talks I doubt the WMF would veto it. We do count as non commercial. It would however decrease the incentive for these groups to drop NC but they are unlikely to regardless.
Not sure if the strategy process is considering this specific question.
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 09:41 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
James
Per "the Foundation has decided", it is not the foundation but our
movement
that has decided that we will mostly only allow licenses that allow commercial reuse.
That doesn't seem quite right. The Foundation Board adopted a resolution on 23 March 2007, which is published at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy and cross-referred to on Wikipedia as still current, headed
This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Our_projects.
and statng
- All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free
Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.
So it seems to me that it is the Foundation not the movement that
controls
the licensing.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Either advocacy or partnerships. Would be nice to see that license deprecated or at least no longer supported by Creative Commons.
James
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:36 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Where would it fit in Strategy 2030? Advocacy?
Paulo
James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 20/05/2019 à(s) 05:41:
We all agree NC licenses are poor. The WMF position was a reflection of
the
community's position at the time and this likely remains the community's position today.
If we as a movement however were to decide we want to allow NC video such that we can use Khan academy and Ted talks I doubt the WMF would veto it. We do count as non commercial. It would however decrease the incentive
for
these groups to drop NC but they are unlikely to regardless.
Not sure if the strategy process is considering this specific question.
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 09:41 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
James
Per "the Foundation has decided", it is not the foundation but our
movement
that has decided that we will mostly only allow licenses that allow commercial reuse.
That doesn't seem quite right. The Foundation Board adopted a
resolution
on 23 March 2007, which is published at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy and cross-referred to on Wikipedia as still current, headed
This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia
Foundation
officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Our_projects.
and statng
- All projects are expected to host only content which is under a
Free
Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.
So it seems to me that it is the Foundation not the movement that
controls
the licensing.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Interesting. So nearly everything is covered by a place of work. So there opinion appears to be that the NC license is simple a way to pretend one is using an open license well changing nothing.
On Sat, May 18, 2019, 18:42 Yury Bulka setthemfree@privacyrequired.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just stumbled upon an page where Swiss collecting society SUISA lists things which they consider commercial use within CC NC licenses, as applied to works they have copyright on (delegated from authors who are their members). It's quite interesting and I think it is a very good example for advocating for fully free/libre licensing of works.
Here's the page:
https://www.suisa.ch/en/members/authors/how-to-register-a-work/creative-comm...
The list of uses that they consider commercial use is quite interesting. For instance, it includes things like:
- involving a counterpart, of a financial or other nature, regardless of
the beneficiary, title or grounds;
- in exchange for other goods, whether or not the exchange generates direct or indirect revenues or gives rise to a payment of any nature whatsoever;
- at places of work;
Best, Yury.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org