Pengetahuan bebas berdasarkan perlesenan Creative Commons

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of the page Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses and the translation is 33% complete.

Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:
asturianu • ‎brezhoneg • ‎català • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎dansk • ‎Deutsch • ‎Zazaki • ‎emiliàn e rumagnòl • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎British English • ‎Esperanto • ‎español • ‎suomi • ‎français • ‎ગુજરાતી • ‎עברית • ‎हिन्दी • ‎hrvatski • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎ქართული • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Malti • ‎မြန်မာဘာသာ • ‎Bân-lâm-gú • ‎norsk bokmål • ‎नेपाली • ‎Nederlands • ‎ਪੰਜਾਬੀ • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎română • ‎русский • ‎simple • ‎slovenčina • ‎svenska • ‎தமிழ் • ‎తెలుగు • ‎ไทย • ‎Tagalog • ‎Türkçe • ‎українська • ‎اردو • ‎ייִדיש • ‎中文
Free Knowledge thanks to Creative Commons Licenses.pdf

Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses: Consequences, risks and side-effects of the license module "non-commercial use only – NC".

Kata Pengantar[edit]

Semua di seluruh dunia semakin ramai orang menggunakan lesen awam yang ditawarkan oleh Creative Commons (CC) untuk membebaskan hasil kreativiti mereka untuk digunakan semula oleh orang lain. Juga projek-projek, institusi dan inisiatif yang lebih sering membuat keputusan untuk melanggan moto CC: "Some rights reserved". Salah satu contoh yang paling popular ini adalah Yayasan Wikimedia, yang bersama-sama dengan masyarakat di seluruh dunia aktivis pada tahun 2008 memutuskan untuk melesenkan ensiklopedia Wikipedia sejagat di bawah perlesenan CC-BY SA - Pengiktirafan Perkongsian Serupa.

Lesen ini hanya salah satu daripada enam perlesenan dalam sut teras perlesenan CC. Lesen-lesen yang paling banyak digunakan daripada set ini dalam nama-nama mereka menunjukkan tambahan singkatan NC bermaksud "penggunaan bukan komersial sahaja". Ramai pemberi yang intuitif memilih lesen NC supaya mudah difahami oleh orang lain bagi menghalang kerja-kerja mereka menjadi penggunaan yang tidak terkawal dan dieksploitasi untuk penggunaan lain.

Banyak akibat lain melalui pilihan ini, walaupun begitu, biasanya tidak diketahui. Risalah daripada Wikimedia Jerman, Creative Commons Jerman dan iRights.info bertujuan untuk menangani kekurangan pengetahuan ini. Kami berharap untuk memberi ulasan dan cadangan mengenai usaha ini dan berharap ia akan memberikan banyak pengalaman yang menarik.

Ribuan terima kasih kepada Pengetahuan Terbuka Yayasan Jerman yang disokong dan dibantu oleh terjemahan bahasa Inggeris daripada teks asal.

John H. Weitzmann, CC DE Undang-undang Utama Projek

Contents

Pengenalan[edit]

Bayangkan sebuah dunia di mana setiap manusia bebas berkongsi dalam jumlah pengetahuan yang banyak. Itulah komitmen kami.

Wikimedia Foundation Visi..

Dengan lesen Creative Commons, penciptaan ditawarkan cara mudah untuk membebaskan kerja-kerja mereka dengan cara yang membolehkan orang ramai untuk menggunakannya. Dalam masa di mana pengetahuan menjadi semakin penting untuk pembangunan individu dan masyarakat, kesatuan hasil kreatif dan kesatuan keuntungan pengetahuan menjadi semakin penting. Sebahagian daripada kesatuan pengetahuan, semua kerja-kerja yang dicipta oleh orang ramai hanya boleh diakses secara bebas dan boleh diguna semula. Hanya melalui kesatuan, hasil kreatif akan dilindungi dan semua manusia mendapatkan peluang yang sama apabila untuk mengakses maklumat, pendidikan dan ilmu pengetahuan.

Kebanyakan penciptaan mahu mengambil bahagian dalam mewujudkan masyarakat pengetahuan moden. Mereka tidak mahu untuk menjaga »semua hak terpelihara« - agak berlawanan: Mereka mempunyai kepentingan dalam melihat kerja-kerja mereka digunakan oleh banyak pihak. Ini dibantu khususnya dengan peluang-peluang Internet menawarkan dalam mengagihkan dan bertukar-tukar pengetahuan dan maklumat dengan cara yang tidak disangkakan.

Creative Commons (CC) adalah set alat yang terbaik diketahui untuk melepaskan hasil kerja sendiri. Walau bagaimanapun, tidak tiap-tiap lesen CC adalah sama. Satu perkara yang kuat, CC adalah untuk memberi hasil kreatif peluang untuk merangka keadaan kepenggunaan adalah paling penting bagi mereka. Pengguna (orang ramai)hanya dapat menggunakan hak-hak tertentu sahaja, manakala hak-hak lain yang masih tinggal akan diberi kepada penulis atau pemegang hak kerja. Ini dicapai melalui blok penghasilan modul pelesenan yang berbeza.

Dalam modul yang berbeza lesen Kesatuan Hasil Kreatif, terutamanya sekatan NC - penggunaan bukan komersial sahaja - adalah sangat popular dengan penulis. Seorang penggunaan komersial tidak dibenarkan dalam keadaan ini. Walau bagaimanapun, membuat keputusan mengenai lesen yang tidak membenarkan kegunaan komersil mempunyai kesan yang meluas.

Banyak kemungkinan penggunaan, seperti kemasukan dalam masyarakat pengetahuan dan arkib, Wikipedia, akhbar-akhbar tempatan, penerbitan, kompilasi dan campuran, sebenarnya tidak termasuk dan dengan itu memerlukan kelulusan tambahan - dan pada hakikatnya bahawa syarat-syarat ini sering dikehendaki oleh penulis.

Buku ini akan menjelaskan semua akibat memilih varian perlesenan CC yang dihadkan untuk kegunaan bukan komersil sahaja (NC). Biasanya kesan yang dimaksudkan cukup untuk bertujuan memilih modul NC yang hanya boleh dicapai dengan cara lain. Dalam beberapa kes, modul NC benar-benar tidak sesuai untuk mencapai kesan yang dimaksudkan oleh penulis. Sebaliknya, penggunaannya telah meluas, kemungkinan akibat yang sering tidak diingini adalah pada pengedaran kandungan. Keputusan untuk menggunakan modul NC perlu dipertimbangkan dengan teliti.

1. Apakah yang kita faham mengenai Kandungan Terbuka? - Kandungan yang boleh digunakan secara bebas.[edit]

Kandungan Terbuka adalah kandungan yang terbuka dan boleh diakses secara bebas - secara lalai, bukan sahaja selepas penulis telah memberikan kebenaran individu. Ini bukanlah satu persoalannya. Undang-undang hak cipta menganggap bahawa kandungan hanya boleh diedarkan dan digunakan apabila pemilik hak-hak ini jelas membenarkannya. Walau bagaimanapun, untuk menggunakan peraturan asas ini dalam era digital menjadi semakin lebih banyak dipersoalkan. Budaya manusia sentiasa dibentuk oleh usaha untuk meningkatkan yang sedia ada. Semua orang membina sesuatu yang orang lain telah wujudkan.

Kandungan digital boleh digunakan semula dan lebih mudah berbanding sebelum ini. Oleh itu,secara teknikalnya keperluan asas undang-undang patut diberikan. Pengetahuan berkesan yang percuma, sentiasa boleh diakses kepada semua orang, keperluan asas undang-undang yang diguna pakai dengan teliti menjadi konteks Internet. Ahli-ahli sains khususnya mengetengahkan potensi besar Internet dan pertukaran pengetahuan secara bebas. Pada tahun 2003, pertubuhan-pertubuhan saintifik Jerman diminta dalam Perisytiharan Berlin untuk akses percuma kepada kerja-kerja saintifik:

Misi kami untuk menyebarkan pengetahuan hanya separuh jalan jika maklumat itu tidak dibuat secara meluas dan mudah didapati untuk masyarakat.

Kini terdapat banyak projek-projek yang berjaya dalam misi mereka untuk memupuk dan menyebarkan pengetahuan percuma. Grafik ini menunjukkan hanya beberapa daripada mereka:

  • talian ensiklopedia Wikipedia adalah tempat di mana pengguna boleh mengumpul pengetahuan manusia;
  • Akses Terbuka membolehkan pertukaran pengetahuan dalam bidang akademik;
  • Sumber Terbuka Perisian Komuniti bekerjasama untuk membangunkan perisian berdasarkan kod yang mudah didapati;
  • Yayasan pengetahuan terbuka menggalakkan penerbitan, penggunaan dan penggunaan semula asas pengetahuan terbuka.

Semua ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan lesen percuma, di mana Kesatuan Kretif Perlesenan Awan (CCPL) dan GNU Perlesenan Umum Awam (GPL) merupakan contoh yang terkenal.

Peluang baru penyebaran ilmu bukan sahaja melalui bentuk klasik tetapi juga dan semakin melalui paradigma akses terbuka Internet perlu disokong. Kami mentakrifkan akses terbuka sebagai sumber yang komprehensif bagi pengetahuan manusia dan warisan budaya yang telah diluluskan oleh masyarakat saintifik.

Dalam usaha untuk merealisasikan wawasan perwakilan global dan pengetahuan mudah diakses, Web masa depan mestilah mampan, interaktif, dan telus. Kandungan dan alat perisian mestilah boleh diakses secara terbuka dan serasi.

Dalam konteks perisian prinsip Sumber Terbuka telah dirancang. Sumber Terbuka bermakna kod sumber perisian boleh diakses secara bebas untuk semua orang. Sumber Terbuka telah diperkenalkan, supaya pembangun perisian tidak perlu bermula sekali lagi apabila mereka menulis perisian baru, tetapi boleh membina kerja-kerja yang sedia ada.

Untuk memastikan prinsip Lesen GNU Lesen Awam Umum (GPL) telah ditetapkan. Perisian di bawah lesen ini boleh digunakan dan yang diberikan oleh semua orang. Pendekatan Sumber Terbuka dalam perisian jelas juga membolehkan kepenggunaan komersial. Kejayaan juga bergantung kepada pilihan ini dengan jumlah yang besar. Kandungan Terbuka bergantung kepada idea asas yang sama sebagai perisian Sumber Terbuka: kerja-kerja bertulis, filem dan kerja-kerja multimedia juga hendaklah membenarkan untuk digunakan secara bebas. Pilihan ini terkenal ke kandungan lesen sebagai Kandungan Terbuka yang membolehkan penggunaan percuma terletak dalam set perlesen awam Creative Commons (CC).

Creative Commons telah dibangunkan pada tahun 2001 sebagai satu inisiatif profesor undang-undang, Lawrence Lessig di Universiti Stanford. Ia bertujuan untuk memberikan perlesen yang mudah difahami untuk siaran kandungan awam untuk semua orang, dan dengan itu melanjutkan lagi kesatuan budaya, malah mungkin menjadikan mereka dalam perkara utama

Sebaliknya prinsip biasa undang-undang hak cipta, di mana semua hak terpelihara oleh penulis, penggunaan lesen tersebut hanya memelihara hak tertentu. Kandungan yang disediakan kepada orang awam akan digunakan. Creative Commons tidak bercanggah dengan undang-undang hak cipta yang sedia ada, tetapi itulah hakikatnya. Tanpa undang-undang hak cipta siaran tidak akan behasil. Kandungan yang dilindungi hak cipta, seperti filem, muzik, teks dan imej-imej boleh digunakan secara bebas melalui lesen tersebut.

2. Mengapa hasil kerja perlu diletakkan di bawah lesen CC? - Untuk membuat ia lebih mudah untuk digunakan.[edit]

Kebanyakan hasil kreatif mahu teks , muzik atau filem mereka untuk digunakan oleh seberapa ramai orang yang mungkin (pengagihan kerja-kerja adalah de jure juga sejenis penggunaan). Mereka mempunyai kepentingan dalam pertukaran bebas maklumat. Kandungan khususnya pendidikan diwujudkan dengan tujuan untuk mencapai seberapa ramai pelajar yang mungkin. Dalam kes ini, apa-apa sekatan undang-undang adalah tidak produktif.

Salah satu sekatan yang paling teruk adalah untuk tidak berbuat apa-apa. Bunyinya seperti paradoks yang menggambarkan undang-undang lalai: "Semua hak cipta terpelihara". Sesiapa yang mencipta sesuatu yang baru, tetapi tidak menjelaskan jika dan bagaimana karya-karya beliau boleh digunakan, dianggap seperti mengatakan "Tiada siapa yang dibenarkan untuk menggunakan kandungan saya". Lesen-lesen CC itu menyediakan satu penyelesaian yang mudah untuk menyatakan keinginan untuk berkongsi dan berkata "Semua orang dibenarkan untuk menggunakan kandungan saya, di bawah terma-terma dan syarat-syarat berikut."

Keterus-terangan dan keboleh-lengkapan lesen CC, mereka telah banyak menyumbang kepada penggunaan secara meluas. Mereka juga mematuhi undang-undang antarabangsa dan disesuaikan dengan kebezaan sistem undang-undang yang berbeza. Orang yang menggunakan perlesen CC sering melakukan ini dengan niat kerja-kerja mereka telah digunakan dalam institusi sosial, budaya dan pendidikan.

Perlesen CC yang mengandungi modul NC, yang hanya membenarkan penggunaan percuma, bukan komersial, sering dianggap sebagai contoh bertentangan dalam dunia di mana institusi walaupun badan kebajikan atau bukan keuntungan dikenakan bayaran untuk setiap kali menggunakan bahan. Sebagai contoh sebab ini adalah menuntut bayaran lesen untuk menyalin dan mengedarkan lembaran nyanyian dalam tadika, yang telah menyebabkan kemarahan orang ramai. Walau bagaimanapun, undang-undang yang sedia ada, tuntutan adalah wajar. Dengan memohon lesen CC, banyak penulis ingin menjauhkan diri daripada amalan-amalan ini. Pilihan modul NC ini selalunya juga kenyataan atas gaya mengaut keuntungan tetapi dianggap tidak wajar.

Walau bagaimanapun, tidak setiap jenis kegunaan komersil adalah negatif. Sebaliknya - ia adalah tidak bermoral dan tidak merugikan masyarakat apabila kandungan juga diedarkan oleh mereka yang mempunyai kepentingan kewangan. Selalunya, kejayaan kerja budaya dan pendidikan sangat bergantung pada kelaziman perniagaan yang sedia ada.

3. Mengapa ada Perlesen CC yang berbeza? - Perlesen CC mencerminkan kepentingan yang berbeza daripada penulis.[edit]

Perkara biasa untuk semua kepelbagaian lesen CC adalah pemikiran yang dialami kerana menggunakan kandungan hendaklah dipermudahkan. Tetapi hasil kreatif, penulis, pengarah dan pemuzik tidak semua mempunyai pemahaman yang sama di mana mereka mahu untuk membenarkan penggunaan kerja-kerja mereka.

Enam variasi berkaitan CC akan menjawab kepada persoalan ini. Mereka menawarkan alat yang fleksibel untuk bekerjasama terhadap penggunaan mengikut syarat-syarat tertentu. Satu contoh yang baik adalah persoalan, itupun jika penulis mahu membenarkan penyuntingan dan mencampur-adukkan kerja-kerja mereka. Bagi sesetengah, ia adalah penting bahawa kerja mereka masih tidak berubah. Pencipta boleh memastikan dengan menggunakan modul Tiada Terbitan (ND untuk pendek), dan masih membenarkan kegunaan lain.

Selebihnya berminat jika kerja mereka digunakan dalam campuran semula, kolaj dan campuran. Mereka menganggap penciptaan kandungan semata-mata sebagai satu peringkat peralihan dalam proses. Kandungan mereka sendiri adalah berdasarkan kepada yang lebih lama dan akan dibangunkan dengan karya-karya baru. Mereka yang memberikan lesen CC, keluar daripada pemikiran ini dan tidak akan memilih sekatan Tiada Terbitan.

Sekiranya anda berpegang kuat kepada prinsip Kandungan Terbuka, anda boleh meluahkannya melalui modul Perkongsian Serupa (SA) bahawa kandungan anda boleh disunting dan diedarkan, tetapi hanya di bawah syarat-syarat (lesen) yang sama, dan dengan itu masih boleh diakses secara bebas.

Beberapa penciptaan mungkin tidak mahu kandungan mereka termasuk dalam penggunaan komersil. Untuk menangani permintaan ini, setiap jenis lesen boleh dilanjutkan dengan modul "penggunaan bukan komersial sahaja" (NC). Walau bagaimanapun, ini tidak digalakkan dalam setiap kes, kerana ia menghadkan hak penggunaan banyak yang sebenarnya demi kepentingan pencipta atau hak pemilik kerja.

4. Bagaimana modul NC mempengaruhi cara kandungan boleh diedarkan? - Kandungan berlesen NC tidak boleh diedarkan secara meluas dan mudah.[edit]

If you mark your content as NC, it cannot be included in free knowledge databases like Wikipedia, in some kind of open media archives and in Open Source projects. It is often a commercial use that helps not-for-profit initiatives to have their breakthrough.

The Wikipedia DVD which was produced commercially by Directmedia has greatly increased the popularity of Wikipedia. The same goes for the inclusion into commercial repositories – both are legally commercial usages and would not be allowed if the NC module was included.

In the context of education and training, a great number of institutions depend on their own revenues, as they are not (to the full extent) publicly funded. The dependency on course fees leads to their classification as commercial. They are therefore not allowed to use content marked with a CC license that includes the NC module, at least not without asking for permission of the author.

Even the usage in many blogs becomes illegal under the NC condition. Many bloggers display advertisements to lower their hosting costs or have an additional income. Therefore, the usage in these blogs is no longer - or at least not unambiguously – non-commercial.

5. What is commercial use? – Any use, that is primarily directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.[edit]

When hearing about commercial use, you would often think of multinational companies like Microsoft or Shell, of stock trading, quick money or profiteering. The term "commercial use" however contains no moral evaluation of the business conduct of the respective institutions or persons, but merely describes that they are obtaiting a commercial advantage and possibly aim for a financial remuneration. And that is necessary for anyone who is not fully financed by public funds or private donations

It is evidently commercial usage if a company uses an image or a text on their company website. It is also commercial use if an image is printed in a book that is published by a publishing house, entirely independent of whether the author receives a remuneration or possibly even has to pay a printing fee to make the publication possible. The publishing house acts with a commercial interest in either case.

A more difficult decision is whether private blogs act with commercial interest, if they (or their hosting service) display advertisements and achieve revenues. These revenues are often minimal and cover barely the hosting costs. There are good arguments against classifying these undertakings as predominantly aimed at a monetary compensation, and therefore allow to call them noncommercial. The distinction is difficult, though, and many cases are disputed.

To stay with the example of the private blog: At which point does a blog lose its non-commercial nature? Already if the advertisement revenue surpasses the operational costs? Or when the first penny is earned? Or only when an "appreciable" income is generated?

Out of precaution, this difficult distinction will often lead the responsible party to not make use of CC licensed content, when the license contains the NC module. Even where the usage would actually be acceptable as non-commercial.

Another approach to distinguish commercial from non-commercial use could be to evaluate not the specific usage, but the type of user. Then you would only have to assess whether the user or institution – as a whole – can be considered commercial. Public schools and museums could then be classified as non-commercial based on their not-for-profit mandate, and one would not have to inspect the individual use cases for their commercial nature.

Unfortunately, the NC module does not make it this easy, since it explicitly mentions the acts that have to be non-commercial. Hence we have to assume a commercial act if, for example, content is sold in a museum shop which is aimed at generating revenue, regardless of the legal status of the shop and the not-for-profit status of the museum.

Completely irrelevant for the distinction between commercial and non-commercial use is, whether the user is even financially able to pay license fees or if they would pay for usage rights in comparable situations. A charitable fund, for example, that uses a picture within their not-for-profit mandate, is considered non-commercial under the NC license terms even if it disposes of considerable means and would pay photographers in a similar situation.

But there are very few not-for-profit institutions these days that have adequate funding and do not depend on additional revenues – which again places them into the gray area of our attempted distinction. To completely avoid the NC module and its restrictions would avoid these uncertainties.

6. Can a CC license with the NC module prevent my content from being used by radicals or extremists? – No. Extremists want to change society, not make profit.[edit]

Radicals and extremists follow a political agenda. Their objectives are at the same time not necessarily commercial, not aimed at a business advantage or financial remuneration, but at political and social changes. Radical political and religious extremists are often organised in non-economic associations. Hence, a NC licensing can in a way even privilege the usage of content by extremists.

In other terms: A scientist who intends to publish a study of political extremism with a publishing house will not be allowed to use the content, if it is protected by the NC module against commercial use, because the publisher is acting with commercial interest. An extremist group, however, which formally acts as an association is well allowed to use the same content under the NC terms.

7. Is the NC module the only option to prevent the appropriation of my content through commercial enterprises? – No. There are other options, such as the Share Alike module.[edit]

An equally effective yet often more efficient way to prevent content from being used with financial intentions is the Share Alike (SA) module. It allows the publication of adaptations only under the same or similar licenses.

Companies or private actors who want to appropriate creative content can usually achieve this goal relatively easily by editing the work and restricting the use of the edited version based on a separate new copyright it carries. The Share Alike module in the Creative Commons license set can prevent that. All adaptations must be published under the same license as the original content. This means that under the restrictions set by CC, the new content remains as freely accessible as the original content.

Furthermore, when the edit consists in enhancing own content with freed-up external CC-SA content, the CC-SA license works in a contagious or viral way: the newly created work (the edited version) as a whole can only be published under the same license. This alone prevents many companies from appropriating free content which is licensed under Share Alike. It would require them to release their own reproduction, advertisement materials (or whatever the end result might be used for) to the public under the same Share Alike license – and that is one thing most companies, especially larger ones, are not willing to do.

At the same time the Share Alike module – as opposed to the NC module – does not have the negative effect of hindering the distribution of content (in blogs for example) in general. Quite the opposite: with the Share Alike license all edits are under a CC license and the adaptations can thus be used afterwards not only by the editor, but by any third party.

8. Can NC-licensed content be used in the Wikipedia project? – No. Wikipedia contents are being used commercially.[edit]

One of the reasons for the widespread and intense usage of Wikipedia is that its contents may be used commercially. Otherwise it would be prohibited for major news sources or other commercial websites to use Wikipedia content verbatim without payment and without asking for permission.

Wikipedia benefits greatly from the commercial use of their content. They are integrated tightly with several search engines, which further the distribution of Wikipedia content, and hence the knowledge compiled by collaboration. The operation of a search engine is an undoubtebly commercial enterprise aimed at profits.

Another example for commercial usage which supports Wikipedia, is the distribution of the DVD versions of Wikipedia, such as the German version produced by the Berlin-based company Directmedia. Within a period of short time this DVD became a bestseller – because of its low price tag and a software with extended search functions.

A prerequisite for creating a Wikipedia DVD was that Directmedia was able to use its contents simply because it is allowed by the license. Furthermore, the project encouraged to sort out incomplete articles, so that they would not end up in the DVD project. Finally, the Wikipedians helped to make the data indexable and sortable.

In return, Directmedia donated one Euro per sold DVD to the German Wikipedia and inflated the Wikimedia image archive with a content donation of 10,000 reproductions of public domain artworks. The business concept of the Wikipedia DVD worked because the software added new features and made the content more attractive, but also because it used a different medium.

Even if you often get to hear that the difference between online and offline is fading, the traditional lexicon and reference format of the DVD appealed to a different target group than the Internet encyclopedia was able to attain. By this process, new readers could be interested in Wikipedia. But all of this was a commercial act, which would not have been permitted if the license that is used by default in Wikipedia would contain the NC module.

9. Can you release NC-licensed content specifically and separately for Wikipedia despite the NC restrictions? – No. The accessibility rules of Wikipedia must not become too complex.[edit]

Wikipedia rejects separate side agreements – just as all other initiatives and projects that work on the free content principles. Otherwise, that third parties which want to collaborate with Wikipedia could be hindered and harmed.

These are, for example, local initiatives, which want to use Wikipedia content in local newspapers, as well as search engines and press services wanting to integrate Wikipedia content. Each of these would have to pay close attention as to which content is freely accessible and which is subject to individual side agreements – an additional effort that would suffocate many cooperations.

In May 2005, Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales consequently announced that content, which can only be used non-commercially or can only be used with separate approval, is not permitted in Wikipedia and has to be deleted.

10. Does the NC module prevent commercial usage? – Yes, but often in all the wrong places.[edit]

The NC restriction in CC licenses does indeed prohibit commercial usage, but – as any clause in any legal contract – does not in itself guarantee that others abide by this prohibition. Just as in many other areas of copyright law, breaches of the restrictions imposed by CC licenses are common. The NC module is no exception.

You have to consider that many companies see breaches of copyright law as a mere financial risk, and may intentionally defy its restrictions. Seen from this perspective, the NC module hinders exactly those companies and institutions that respect copyright law most. That includes public institutions which cooperate with commercial partners, but also knowledge databases like Wikipedia, open media archives or Open Source projects.

All these projects, initiatives and institutions which explicitly endorse free access to knowledge are subject to closer scrutiny to not breach the restrictive copyright regulations. In order not to endanger their work, they have to study license agreements with the utmost care. Since the possibility of a commercial use cannot be ruled out altogether – and often it should not be excluded since these initiatives are interested in spreading knowledge – content licensed with a NC condition will not be used by them.

This creates a paradox: the NC restriction is most minutely heeded where its consequences are least intended.

11. Am I ready to act against the commercial use of my content? – If not, you should consider not to use the NC module in the first place.[edit]

To restrict a Creative Commons license by means of the NC module is only reasonable if the author is also willing to act against commercial use, for example in court.

That does not mean that you have to fight every single breach of copyright. Breaches of copyright law are common, and CC licensed content is no exception – and the decision for or against a legal dispute will always depend on many considerations.

However, if you do not intend to act against commercial use anyway, the NC license variant will only discourage those who observe the law meticulously, especially if they are not perfectly certain whether they are considered non-commercial. These are usually the users that you do not want to scare off.

12. Can NC-licensed content be printed in newspapers? – No. Newspapers are in any case commercial users.[edit]

Newspapers are operated to generate revenue; they aim at a commercial advantage and a financial compensation. That is a fact irrespective of the fundamental right of free press and the great influence of newspapers on public opinion and debate.

Furthermore, the classification of newspapers as commercial is valid even when they are – such as in the case of advertisement journals – distributed for free. These papers are financed by advertisement, and thus operate for a monetary advantage.

Of course, a CC licensed content can be printed in newspapers, despite the NC module, if the author explicitly agrees. This equally applies to any other commercial use. The great advantage of the CC standard licenses is, however, that you do not have to negotiate an agreement in every single case. This effort-saving effect of standard licensing is lost if the NC module demands case-by-case negotiations.

13. Can NC-licensed content be used in schools, training and universities? – No, not everywhere.[edit]

Depending on the legal status of the provider, a school, trade school or university can be classified either as commercial or non-commercial. Today, a large number of schools, universities, training centres professional schools, scientific and cultural institutes are not exclusively publicly funded and are not exclusively financed by donations or endowment capital. These educational institutions depend on own revenues. By this orientation, to generate own revenue, their enterprise is aimed at monetary compensation to a degree that can no longer be considered negligible.

The less public funding an institution gets, the higher is the necessity to acquire additional revenue by commercial means. This puts educational institutions, that already are in a difficult position as they do not have sufficient public funding, in further disadvantage, as they can not make use of CC licensed content containing the NC module.

14. How do you classify NC-licensed content that is first used at school, but later outside of school? – If used outside of school, the use is often to be considered commercial.[edit]

The use of CC licensed content with the NC module is usually not an issue if it happens strictly within public schools. These schools have an educational mandate and do not follow commercial goals. A different case is that of private schools which do generate revenue (see question 13).

Therefore, a wide spectrum of possible uses of NC-licensed content is opened within those schools that would otherwise classify as commercial. Students and professors may print texts, play songs; Students may – as long as the No Derivatives (ND) module is not applied and thus prevents it – create mashups and collages and edit the content. Even though the results are unproblematic in a school setting they become problematic outside of the school premises.

If for example the local newspaper wants to report on the results of a student competition, they cannot just reprint the collage with the CC licensed contents, if the NC module is included. This would require the permission of the original author.

Since the CC-NC license makes the school a location of free access to copyrighted content, many students gain a false sense of security if they use the same content outside of school. In this case, the threshold of commercial use is easily breached. If for example such content is uploaded to social networks on the Internet, the mere possibility of access by third parties (for example other people in the social network) would constitute a breach of the NC module in the license, since the hosting providers and operators of social networks usually act with commercial interest.

Although the actual breach will, in these cases, be effected by the respective hosting providers or operator, these companies usually have clauses in their usage agreements that allow them to claim recompensation for incurred damages from their users.

This is one more reason why you should not use the NC restrictions on content for educational purposes. Especially students should not be put into the situation that their unproblematic conduct within school leads to a carelessness that puts them in conflict with the law outside of school.

Now, as a creative professional you could take up the position that you will not pursue or hang a lantern on such unwanted breaches of your licenses. However, then you should ask yourself why you had to choose the NC module in the first place (see question 11).

15. How does NC affect mashups? – Not all CC licenses can be combined with each other.[edit]

Works that are licensed under CC-BY-SA (Attribution, Share-Alike) license can only be combined and used with works that bear the same license or the freer license type CC-BY (Attribution). The combination of CC-licensed content with other combinations of the different modules, especially those without NC module, is not permitted.

Thus, severe problems are caused by the fact that licenses have to be compatible with each other if you want to combine contents. This applies especially to mashups, which originate from a culture of free manipulation of content, and consider CC licensing as supporting their cultural values. In fact, however, many license combinations are not compatible, especially NC licenses cannot be combined with other licenses that do not have this restriction.

Furthermore, mashups are often created without the intent of financial compensation, which initially makes the use of NC-licensed content legitimate. Later, those mashups can become popular and are republished in blogs and on other platforms. This puts their makers, who legitimately used NC-licensed content when making the mashup, in a legal gray area where the usage can be attributed a commercial character.

16. Can a third party commercial usage benefit the author? – Yes. If you are interested in distributing your content widely, you should allow commercial uses.[edit]

A commercial use is not by definition an abusive use. Wherever publicity and attention for the content are the primary goal, any use of the content usually benefits the author, as it increases their popularity.

Especially content that is used in the context of public education initiatives should be permitted to be used in as many distribution channels as possible, as a maximum outreach is the primary goal.

17. Can a user of CC-licensed content create the outward impression that the author endorses the particular usage? – No. A CC-license explicitly does not suggest endorsement.[edit]

CC does not affect the personality rights of the author. A user must not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the CC licensor. This "no endorsement" clause, as it is called in the US, is a standard provision in many open content license models.

18. Can the NC module still have any advantages? – Yes, but less often than you would think.[edit]

For private individuals, there is usually no good reason for a restriction to non-commercial use only. In many cases there is very little realistic chance that a commercial user is willing to pay money for using the content. A CC license has the main goal to make the content as widely spread as possible. For achieving that the NC module is often a hindrance.

In turn, anyone who has no intention of seeing the content widespread without strict control over it, can achieve this goal by excluding commercial uses. CC licenses with the NC module can make sense for publishers, whose business model is based on the traditional "all rights reserved", who invest considerably in a publication and hold their own distribution channels.

Such publishers have no particular interest in allowing competitors to gain profit from their investment. The benefits of commercial use by third parties, namely a better and faster dissemination, is less important for them because they maintain their own, often costly distribution operations.

However, despite focussing on a business model that is based on the kind of exclusivity offered by classic copyright law, these publishers can have an interest in their content being used in at least the non-commercial areas of education and science, as this may boost sales via classical distribution.

19. Which is the license Wikipedia content is published under? – The CC-BY-SA license.[edit]

In order to increase the commons of free knowledge and culture, Wikipedia requires every author to allow the general public a free reuse of their articles. This is achieved by a Creative Commons license that includes the Attribution (BY) and Share Alike (SA) modules, meaning that the license requires giving credit to the author and distributing any edited versions under the same terms.

Texts that were not created by the authors themselves, or texts that originated in a collaboration, may also only enter Wikipedia if they are put under a CC-BY-SA license or a compatible license.

Up until 2009 Wikipedia had used the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) by the GNU initiative. The Free Software Foundation had originally developed this license for software documentation, hence it was too complicated and not ideally suited for Wikipedia.

Nonetheless, the GFDL open content licenses did not have to be abandoned when Wikipedia was transitioning to a CC-BY-SA license. The old license is still used to avoid possible contradictions. Commercial use of content is explicitly permitted by both licenses. The Share Alike module ensures that content cannot be taken from the world-wide pool of freely accessible knowledge by editing and republishing, but that it remains a part of free knowledge and free culture.

Attribution to the author is an important part of every CC license. This is true for Wikipedia authors as well. Since the encyclopedic entries were created by a multitude of authors in collaboration, the attribution for Wikipedia articles should be as requested in the terms of use.

Just as the NC module, the No Derivatives (ND) module is also not permitted for Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia thrives from allowing its articles to be corrected, extended and edited by others. Therefore ND is not compatible with the Wikipedia concept.

Conclusion[edit]

The public licenses developed by Creative Commons (CC) are tools which make creative works available for free use under certain conditions. As rights holders have different needs and motives, CC offers six different license variants.

Some of the most popular license variants include the condition that the licensed works must not be used commercially. This has far-reaching and often unintended consequences for the dissemination of the respective works and sometimes even entirely thwarts what the licensor wants to achieve by choosing a CC license.

This brochure wants to offer information on consequences, risks and side-effects of the restrictive CC license variants that don't allow commercial use.