NC License

NC License

by Chris Wilkins -
Number of replies: 13

 

I'm not really expecting an answer to these questions as I think that this will be clear as the weeks progresss. Although if someone does have an easy answer, I'd love to hear it:-)

I’m pretty clear about all of the licenses except the non-commercial license. It restricts the license in that someone cannot make money off of my idea/intellectual property. I get that but didn’t the video say that even if I use the most open license (CC By) that if someone remixes and profits off of my original content, that they can’t do so without crediting me and also paying me for that content? Or they just have to credit me?

I’m not sure why anyone would want someone else to profit off of their intellectual property. I am all for sharing and making something better. But what if publishers started taking their content from the OER repositories, tweaking it, and reselling it back to students. When faculty are making decisions about textbooks, an instructor may not know where the information came from within the publisher's textbook so they can’t make an informed decision unless they have combed the repositories themselves and seen what is out there.

Perhaps this will someday become a non-issue but I’m trying to get clear in my mind what license I would use if I was going to use a CC license for what I have developed. I do have original content online as I developed two classes for Saylor.org and they openly share their content and classes but I did not have to license anything.

And does the non-commercial just mean that there can’t be a profit. If students are charged for something, like photocopies of the content, but there was no profit made then that would still be acceptable under the NC license, right?

In reply to Chris Wilkins

Re: NC License

by Steve Foerster -

Chris wrote:

"I’m pretty clear about all of the licenses except the non-commercial license. It restricts the license in that someone cannot make money off of my idea/intellectual property. I get that but didn’t the video say that even if I use the most open license (CC By) that if someone remixes and profits off of my original content, that they can’t do so without crediting me and also paying me for that content? Or they just have to credit me?"

 

They just have to credit you.  Anyone can use materials licensed as BY or BY-SA without payment.  In fact, even the least free of the Creative Commons licenses make use of such materials be costless to users.

"I’m not sure why anyone would want someone else to profit off of their intellectual property."

While there are educators who feel as you do, some people don't even believe in the legitimacy of copyright, and many of those who do have no ideological objection to other people making a profit.

"I am all for sharing and making something better. But what if publishers started taking their content from the OER repositories, tweaking it, and reselling it back to students."

In theory they could sell it to students without even tweaking it.  But why would students pay money to publishers for materials that they and their instructors can find for free with a simple Google search? As it is, many students already download "unofficial" copies of textbooks, that would be rampant if legitimate costless copies were freely available.

"When faculty are making decisions about textbooks, an instructor may not know where the information came from within the publisher's textbook so they can’t make an informed decision unless they have combed the repositories themselves and seen what is out there."

Indeed, although some would argue that doing this sort of thing is their primary function, and that it's only that so many instructors have dropped the ball that textbooks can cost so much in the first place.

-=Steve=-

In reply to Steve Foerster

Re: NC License

by Sylvia Currie -

The questions around NC are fascinating. Steve raises a good point: Why would someone pay for materials that are already free? It's possible that the original work was improved, packaged differently, and appears to be worth the price. 

Stephen Downes argues in favour of NC, stating that NC licenses preserve cost-free access for users. Do you agree?

Does an NC license take away from the goal to have someone improve on your work? 

And finally, this is where I find the discussion really becomes mindbending. If someone does want to use your work for commercial puposes, they might ask for your permission. If you allow them to use your work, this then change the license? 

In reply to Sylvia Currie

Re: NC License

by Steve Foerster -

Sylvia wrote:

"Steve raises a good point: Why would someone pay for materials that are already free? It's possible that the original work was improved, packaged differently, and appears to be worth the price."

Maybe.  Or maybe someone is providing the same content, but in a format you hadn't considered, so it's a good thing for students that the option is there.  For example, you might release a book freely, but only in an online format on a web site, and then some entrepreneur might then sell printed bound copies to those willing to pay extra for that.  I'd call that a winning scenario.

"Stephen Downes argues in favour of NC, stating that NC licenses preserve cost-free access for users. Do you agree?"

Not even slightly.  Downes deserves praise for his work on cMOOCs, but by definition NC is a restriction, and that means it's demonstrably less free than a license that doesn't include it.  He believes that without the NC restriction, commercial entities will hide work in repositories for which one must pay for access.  But the original work can still be copied freely, meaning anyone with a copy (inluding the original creator, of course) can post it to as many other repositories as they like.

"Does an NC license take away from the goal to have someone improve on your work?"

It can, because it means that commercial entities can't sell that work for profit, which means an entire category of participants are excluded.

It's important to remember that not all commercial entities are moneygrubbing scumbags like the ones who run the big texbook companies.  When you encumber a work with the NC restriction, that also means that it's off limits to low cost schools in low income countries, many of which are for profit yet provide a decent, affordable education in places where there are no real public or non-profit alternatives.

"And finally, this is where I find the discussion really becomes mindbending. If someone does want to use your work for commercial puposes, they might ask for your permission. If you allow them to use your work, this then change the license?"

Not at all.  Once a work is released under a Creative Commons license or waiver, it cannot be revoked and it never changes to a different Creative Commons license or waiver.  As the copyright holder, however, you don't need a license to do what you want with it.  That means if you have a ideological opposition to profit you can tag something as NC, but make a one time exception for a particular company without that empowering any other commercial user -- meaning for commercial users you would still have the same set of monopoly entitlements as any other copyright holder.

-=Steve=-

In reply to Steve Foerster

Re: NC License

by Clint Lalonde -

It's important to remember that not all commercial entities are moneygrubbing scumbags like the ones who run the big texbook companies.  When you encumber a work with the NC restriction, that also means that it's off limits to low cost schools in low income countries, many of which are for profit yet provide a decent, affordable education in places where there are no real public or non-profit alternatives.

This is an excellent point & example re) the implications of the NC clause. Thanks for making it.

In reply to Clint Lalonde

Re: NC License

by Shivanand Balram -

It's a two-edge sword I think. The NC restriction may actually help to prevent third parties (private niche companies) in developing countries from exploiting these CC resources for financial gain. For example, there are companies in the developing world that re-package these materials and sell them at a lower cost to students. The for-profit schools that provide affordable education are then required to compete in the marketplace, which might detract from their original mandate. Some of my earlier education was completed in a developing country!!

In reply to Shivanand Balram

Re: NC License

by Shivanand Balram -

And another thought that came to mind after I clicked the last "post" button...

How feasible is it to implement a limited commercial-use creative commons license that includes some categories (educational institutions, etc) and excludes others (private companies, etc)?

 

In reply to Shivanand Balram

Re: NC License

by Steve Foerster -

Shivanand wrote:

"How feasible is it to implement a limited commercial-use creative commons license that includes some categories (educational institutions, etc) and excludes others (private companies, etc)?"

It's entirely infeasible, since the set of licenses from Creative Commons is fixed.  And it's a good thing they're not, actually, because for every license that includes the SA (ShareAlike or copyleft) clause, all content with that license cannot be remixed with any content with a different license with the SA clause.  So, for example, one cannot mix together BY-SA content and BY-NC-SA content, they are forever in separate silos.  It's for this reason that I wish people would stick simply to the BY license, or even the CC0 waiver, which releases content without any encumbrances at all.

In reply to Steve Foerster

Re: NC License

by Sylvia Currie -

Good questions and good points!

One tip that really made me go ahhhhhh is that you can include content with a less open license as long as you are clear about it: e.g "Except where otherwise noted this textbook is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License". 

There were some specific proposals to change/clarify NC licenses in the Creative Commons 4.0 versioning process. It takes a little time to pour through the proposals but it's well organized by proposal, pros, cons, comments, and treatment in 4.0: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial

Also, this answer in the FAQ may help to clarify:

Can I waive license terms or conditions?

Yes. You may choose to waive some license terms or conditions. Works licensed using CC but with additional permissions granted or conditions waived may be compatibly licensed with other works under the same license. The 3.0 licenses specifically permit this, and our CC+ protocol provides a mechanism for facilitating that grant.

In reply to Sylvia Currie

Re: NC License

by Karina Sternin -

I think this all comes back to the true open textbook.  If you truly believe in the idea of sharing, no restrictions, you shouldn't be concerned whether someone else profits from anything you've worked on.

In reply to Steve Foerster

Re: NC License

by Chris Wilkins -

Thank you Steve. This has given me food for thought especially the whole "some people don't even believe in the legitimacy of copyright".

I'm going to chew on this for a while. Where does knowlege begin or end and so how can we copywrite it. This riddle will keep me busy through many a meeting I think!

In reply to Chris Wilkins

Re: NC License

by Shivanand Balram -

I found the review below to be helpful, especially when I started to compare and contrast all the different options out there (copyright, copyleft, fair use, cc, etc):

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3000_7-6357305-1.html

 

In reply to Shivanand Balram

Re: NC License

by Sylvia Currie -

That is a good outline of the different options, Shivanand. One thing that stands out is that a creative commons license provides clear information about how a piece of work can be used. It eliminates the need to contact the author. For those of us involved in curriculum development, this is huge!

In reply to Sylvia Currie

Re: NC License

by Shivanand Balram -

Totally agree Sylvia! And importantly the cc license also places more control of the "creations" in the hands of the content creators/generators.