"That may be, but the effect of the NC clause is to make it impossible for
poor artists to make money from their derivatives of the covered work."
No it doesn't. It means the poor artist has to find another artwork to make
derivatives of, one that is not covered by an NC license. Or they have to
negotiate a commercial license with the artist using the NC clause, who is
probably also a poor artist. This would give the original artist the chance
to ask for a fair revenue-sharing deal, but depending on the situation, they
might also just give them permission, and supply a bank account number for an
optional donation. The point is, commercial use means there's going to be
money involved, and its not unreasonable for some of it to go back to artists
who did the original work.
"If I sell tables and tell you that, therefore, you are not allowed to sell
tables, I'm sure you would be able to see why that is unjust."
I do. But tables are like buckets in my example above. What we are talking
about is not NC clauses on tables (or buckets), but NC clauses on paintings
of tables (or buckets).
