"Tim Cowlishaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] NC simply does not > mean that an artist cannot commercially exploit their work, as Commercial > rights can be obtained through a seperate licence [...] > However, to state that NC licences prohibit commercial exploitation > of ones own work is a complete falsehood.
It's not completely false. It depends if your work builds on anyone else's work. The argument about seperate licences is correct yet misleading - commercial rights *can* be obtained through a seperate licence, no matter how restrictive the public licence is, can't they? In theory, you can obtain commercial rights over everything in a broadcaster's archive. In practice, some of the rights-holders will make outrageous demands or flat-out refuse to grant you a useful licence for your task. Have you tried getting commercial rights over works under a "non-commercial sharing" licence? It's often a long and tedious process, almost as vexing as getting clearance for works under traditional EULAs. > - it's simply a case of > 'ask first, and agree terms' before allowing commercial sharing. There's nothing simple about "ask first, and agree terms" for most derived works. You try getting permission for a commercial print run of work based on material from one of the major non-commercial sites. In many cases, you can't even identify all the interested parties, let alone agree terms. So, practically, much non-commercial sharing is not shareable commercially and it is little use to artists who cannot afford to subsidise their derived works. NC is only one part of the cultural commons and not as beneficial to society in general as full-commons. I call NC a creative municipal flowerbed rather than a full creative commons. Pretty to look at, but mostly useless for growing food for the beasts. In one way, that's fine enough - food is not its purpose - but it is madness to promote only flowerbeds and ignore the rest of the commons when we are relatively short of sustainable food. > [...] Others may disagree, but as > mentioned before, pluralism is a strength rather than a weakness in my > opinion. Yes, pluralism is a strength, but NC-only promotion is not broad free culture promotion, so iCommons Ltd is not a broad free culture org. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
