On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:29:00 +0100, Bill Streeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I may be splitting hairs here, but the author lists "Public Domain" > as a type of CC license. But I don' think that this is the case. I > thought that Public Domain was a part of standard copyright law. Am > I wrong about this? I think CC just lists public domain because people who are interested in CC might also be interested in releasing their work to the public domain. No harm, no foul. > But I do see his point on the definitions of commercial. I would > suspect that most users would consider commercial use to be used in > a way that directly makes a profit for the publisher. Like directly > selling copies of the work, or used as the primary content in a for- > profit venture. A website with ads isn't always a for-profit > venture. But I agree that the commercial concept is pretty fuzzy. > But I don't believe that anyone would consider a link to a resume to > be an ad as he suggests. First off all: What regular people think "commercial use" is doesn't mean a thing. At all (unless both parties in a dispute agrees, but then we wouldn't be talking). What matters is how a judge interprets the license and the law. The big issue with CC is that it has not been tested in court yet (unlike copyright law which has been tested a million billion times). What's really needed is some lawsuits centered around the CC licenses. I can't believe I just wrote that. I don't know if the guy read the actual license. It is more specific than the *guidelines* you link to when you link to a license. The license says: "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation[...]" The operative word being "primarily". You can interpret the above in a multitude of ways (some ads might be okay, others not). As long as everyone is agreeing you're fine. The moment someone disagrees the courts will have to take a stand. Their interpretation means a whole lot and will set down guidelines for future users of CC material. The court's interpretation might not be what the authors of the CC license intended in which case the license will have to be rewritten and then the process will begin again. So all we need is someone to sue. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
