Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Your Rights Online

Creative Commons Launches CC+ License 67

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the all-about-just-gettin-paid dept.
E1ven writes "Creative Commons has this week released their CC+ protocol, which provides a way for authors to allow other people to commercially reuse their work, and give them a pre-negotiated fee or percentage. It makes it easy for people to release the Material under CC-No-Commercial, and then have a way to charge for commercial use if companies are interested."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Creative Commons Launches CC+ License

Comments Filter:
  • by SockPuppet_9_5 (645235) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @05:59PM (#21757200) Journal
    Great, but... If I were to tell this to someone, is there a real world money example(s) to illustrate this procedure?

    Say, the item I use is 1/12th the amount of major imagery in a product.
    Where's the breakover for fees if:

    1)A not intended for profit item that somehow accidentally earns a few hundred bucks
    2)Part of a presentation in a business that I would normally pay between $5 and $200 (at iStockPhoto for example) but otherwise never sees the light of day
    3)Part of a menu at a restaurant
    4)Part of a large ad campaign.

    Feel free to give a wide range of examples, or link to ones similar to these suggested ones.

    If I'm to convince others to want to use images with this new label, I'd like to know how to explain this to potential clients.
  • Re:Speaking of (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:10PM (#21758070)

    I think you were pretty hard on the grandparent. He sounds honestly confused, and wants to make his work available, but is worried someone will just grab it, change the name, sell it to a market, and screw him.

    It seems like a perfectly valid worry, to me at least. And depending on why he cares, there are some options.

    But, it is not a precise enough concern to deal with yet.

  • by Njovich (553857) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:32PM (#21758384)
    So, what are the limits of the word 'commercial'? The way I read this license, you basically can not use this for anything. Websites with advertisements have an indirect trade or profit goal, you can't use the content on something like Youtube (which is part of a for-profit company), you can't use the artwork in a GPL'ed piece of code (it allows commercial use). Even a private artwork can be seen as a work to improve someones portfolio. The potential for good would be a lot bigger if the CC licenses didn't have this limit.

    Of course, everyone should pick the license they want, but I think people underestimate just how limiting the NC licenses are for people that try to stick to the law.
  • by ortholattice (175065) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:49PM (#21758624)
    One problem I have with this and other "non-commercial" CC licenses is that "non-commercial" doesn't seem, to me, to be clearly defined. Certainly there can be blatant commercial uses that are easy to identify, but there are many situations where it is not so clear. Suppose, for example, the material is posted a personal home page, which is provided free by the ISP in exchange for advertisements. Does that constitute "commercial use"? Clearly, the ISP is profiting from the material if it is drawing people to that page and thus the ads. Who owes who what money?

    Is a Red Cross advertisement commercial or noncommercial? If the Red Cross paid a magazine for an ad containing a CC+ licensed image, then the magazine is earning some money from it, even though the Red Cross itself is non-commercial. (Or is it?)

    It is even hard to come up with examples where the use is disconnected from the slightest taint of a direct or indirect commercial connection.

    Of course, CC+ is also incompatible with GPL-licensed software. For example, a CC licensed "non-commercial use" icon in a software package would prevent a commercial entity from using it, defeating the purpose of the GPL.

  • Re:That's smart... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AvitarX (172628) <<gro.derdnuheniwydnarb> <ta> <em>> on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @08:46PM (#21759208) Journal
    Easy.

    1)Come up with the terms of your non-conforming (to the GPL) distribution of product.
    2)name your license (I shall choose "QHNDASPL")
    3)QHNDASPL states "you may use either GPL, terms from 1, or QHNDASPL to redistribute"
    4)Only accept submissions with the QHNDASPL license

    This will leverage the many eyes, theoretically, and allow you to use any patches submitted.

    You would not be able to use pure GPL code and leverage what already exists (as GPL), but you could use BSD code and accept patches (if that is what you meant by leverage).

    This is similar to a lot of dual licenses that already exist, except many projects want you to assign ownership to submit. This is to make future license changes easier (see the difficulty getting Mozilla to GPL, or if it was wanted to ever get Linux to the standard GPL (not the GPL2 only it currently is).

If you are good, you will be assigned all the work. If you are real good, you will get out of it.

Working...