Comments on: Creative Commons NonCommercial http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/03/01/creative-commons-noncommercial/ relatively irrelevant Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:38:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Jacques FROISSANT Altaïde http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/03/01/creative-commons-noncommercial/#comment-2825 Jacques FROISSANT Altaïde Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:38:40 +0000 http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/03/01/creative-commons-noncommercial/#comment-2825 <p><strong>Schmap le guide touristique 2.0 ...</strong></p> <p>Schmap c'est vraiment le guide touristique 2.0 ! : un contenu mis à jour en temps réel, customisable, consultable à volonté, proposant des excursions virtuelles modifiables pour préparer les votres selon vos envies, des cartes agissant de manièr...</p> Schmap le guide touristique 2.0 …

Schmap c’est vraiment le guide touristique 2.0 ! : un contenu mis à jour en temps réel, customisable, consultable à volonté, proposant des excursions virtuelles modifiables pour préparer les votres selon vos envies, des cartes agissant de manièr…

]]> By: David Pittman http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/03/01/creative-commons-noncommercial/#comment-2802 David Pittman Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:23:46 +0000 http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/03/01/creative-commons-noncommercial/#comment-2802 <p>My feeling is that Schmap does intend to make a profit. If not immediately, then later on. Use of the creative commons photos is a cost saving measure during their startup. Their contract seems to supersede the standard creative commons license in that it allows them to use the photos at any time in the future, regardless of the extent of ad revenue or change in download policy. This certainly seems to be a wise business approach given the extensive database of travel photographs on the Flickr site, although not all are CC. I wonder how many all rights reserved photos are short listed?</p> My feeling is that Schmap does intend to make a profit. If not immediately, then later on. Use of the creative commons photos is a cost saving measure during their startup. Their contract seems to supersede the standard creative commons license in that it allows them to use the photos at any time in the future, regardless of the extent of ad revenue or change in download policy. This certainly seems to be a wise business approach given the extensive database of travel photographs on the Flickr site, although not all are CC. I wonder how many all rights reserved photos are short listed?

]]> By: Matt Whyndham http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/03/01/creative-commons-noncommercial/#comment-2793 Matt Whyndham Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:34:20 +0000 http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/03/01/creative-commons-noncommercial/#comment-2793 <p>Having read the draft CC guidelines on non-commercial use (you have to click through until you get to the PDF), it still seems a bit grey. What does "in connection with" mean?</p> <p>I'm taking the scope of that to be "pertaining to the whole project". Others may confine themselves to the particular "supplier" transaction revolving around the CC-licenced work itself, or to the transaction involving the end-user. I think the latter is what Schmap are hoping.</p> <p>Photographers providing elements of a guidebook don't always get paid highly. Thousands queue up to get into Lonely Planet books, and I think all you get is another guidebook, and none of your image rights.</p> <p>In the commercial world, suppliers of many OEM components don't always benefit from the whole-product value chain either, or influence it very much (unless you are Intel), so it's on the face of it a bold posture to expect all the terms of your contract to be exactly duplicated further along the chain, and for this to propagate to the entire product.</p> <p>Like GPL components of Sun's software, you can require, if you choose, that your OEM component (i.e. your photo) be incorporated in another work without your work being inaccessible as a result. But you would have to be Intel-strength-critical to the success of that product to require that the whole product be placed in the commons.</p> Having read the draft CC guidelines on non-commercial use (you have to click through until you get to the PDF), it still seems a bit grey. What does “in connection with” mean?

I’m taking the scope of that to be “pertaining to the whole project”. Others may confine themselves to the particular “supplier” transaction revolving around the CC-licenced work itself, or to the transaction involving the end-user. I think the latter is what Schmap are hoping.

Photographers providing elements of a guidebook don’t always get paid highly. Thousands queue up to get into Lonely Planet books, and I think all you get is another guidebook, and none of your image rights.

In the commercial world, suppliers of many OEM components don’t always benefit from the whole-product value chain either, or influence it very much (unless you are Intel), so it’s on the face of it a bold posture to expect all the terms of your contract to be exactly duplicated further along the chain, and for this to propagate to the entire product.

Like GPL components of Sun’s software, you can require, if you choose, that your OEM component (i.e. your photo) be incorporated in another work without your work being inaccessible as a result. But you would have to be Intel-strength-critical to the success of that product to require that the whole product be placed in the commons.

]]>