ozgur k. on Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:13:57 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> suggesting creative commons to extend the "commercial use" question |
suggesting creative commons to extend the "commercial use" question is anyone interested in forming a workgroup to develop a proposal for creative commons to change/extend "Allow commercial uses of your work?" question during license choice? i have been having a hard time trying to explain the consequences of choosing a "non-commercial" cc license to the authors who just do not want commercial *exploitations* of their work but would be ok, even happy, when someone would have the freedom to make some money as a result of their contributions to the work and even donate back a part of this money to the original author. my point is that copyleft attitude is enough to prevent commercial *exploitation* of a work, while enabling people to make some money, which cannot be more than the value they add to the original work and which would give way to another economics for cultural works, which is not based on accumulation of capital: the requirement for accumulation of capital to obtain the “rights” for reproduction and sale in advance (the investment) has been one of reasons for justifying the "culture industry”. the problem with cc is that, when you ask someone do you want to "Allow commercial uses of your work?", anyone who is not happy with the current economics of culture industry would say "no" as a quick reflex, unless they know about the politics and consequences of the copyleft attitude. of course there are many people who has no problem with the culture industry and choose nc just to promote their work, through which they think they cannot make any money but still has a hope that one day someone may ask to "license" their work to use for commercial purposes with exclusive rights to do so. i believe most of the people who choose nc with such motivations but the rest of the authors should at least be informed about the consequences of both options. cc did a good job adding "This is not a Free Cultural License" notice when one chooses a cc license with nd and/or nc clause. so they may consider such a proposal if the wording would sound "neutral". rob myers once wrote to nettime that the proposal for re-labeling cc licenses as “free cultural” and “non-free cultural” was not appreciated so this would conflict with the neo-liberal and author-centric perspective of cc but at least we would have proposed... we would also have a new document that explains the consequences of choosing nc or just copleyft... does anyone know or at least can think of a situation where copyleft is not enough to prevent commercial *exploitation*? I know that this "exploitation” vocabulary is not so "neutral" but below is an example of what i have in my mind and should definitely change and be simplified while proposing to cc and backed up with a report of discussing the possible scenarios and giving examples. the question should change and give more options according to the answer: are you ok with the possibility of commercial exploitation of your work by others? The answer "yes" would direct to CC by, CC by-sa and CC0 options. The answer "no" would bring up two more options as follows and link to an info document we would prepare and host under freedomdefined.org and other possible places, even on cc website. Would you like to reserve your rights to give others the exclusive rights to commercially exploit your work in the future by re-licensing the work to them with a copyright license but now license your work with a "non-commercial" clause that reserves the right to make any money through the work to yourself only but not to anyone else who builds on your work? Would you like to give people the freedom of the possibily making some money through donations etc by building on your work without commercially exploiting neither your nor their labour and making some money up to the degree of the value they add to your work. If they are nice people, they may also share part of the money with you. Choosing this answer, you will license your work with cc by-sa, which is a copyleft free cultural license and people who build on your work will have to make their contributions free/libre for others to build on, including you. so my point is calling for forming a working group together with like-minded people and even opponents, to propose cc to consider the wording and options they feature while choosing a license. even if it will not be effective on cc, at least we would have a document for some curious people the “rights” related to this text overrides nettime's default “no commercial use without permission” notice an is multi-licensed with all those licenses listed at http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses#List_of_licenses -- özgür k. gpg:A3E6 57AD E14D 1F66 A546 6101 BA42 0724 E750 C5AE # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: