Comments on: Does the Noncommercial Creative Commons license make sense?

Noncommercial Creative Commons is convenient. That doesn't make it necessarily good.

[Jonathan Tappan]

This article basically says that the Noncomercial License is inconvenient for commercial users who want to use the material without paying for it--but that's really its intent.

I am not a lawyer, but the following rules of thumb should probably cover most cases:

1) If you treat your activities as a hobby for tax purposes then they are not commercial.

2) If you treat them as a business for tax purposes (i.e. expenses are deductable) then they are commercial.

3) If a business hires you to do something then you are engaged in commercial activities.

[ghaff]

That does allow some cases--e.g. the nominal AdSense revenue from a blog. However, that's actually a more restrictive view of noncommercial than in the Creative Commons discussion paper that I linked to. Which leaves my point that it's ambiguous. (And which is why I didn't use noncommercial photos in my presentation.)

BTW, to be clear, my point about convenience wasn't intended to be about convenience to businesses. Frankly, microstock is probably a better choice for most "official" corporate uses because of the Attribution requirement--among other reasons. Rather I was referring to convenience in coming up with a license that contributors could feel good about using--even though there are a lot of problems if you start trying to parse any number of nonextreme cases.

[eglencee]

why I didn't use noncommercial photos in my presentation.) BTW, to be clear, my point about convenience wasn't intended to be about convenience to businesses. Frankly, microstock is probably a better choice for most "official" corporate uses because of the Attribution requirement--among other reasons. Rather I was referring to convenience in coming up with a license that contributors could feel good about using--even though there are a lot of problems if you start trying to parse any number of nonextreme cases.www.hayatsite.comwhy I didn't use noncommercial photos in my presentation.) BTW, to be clear, my point about convenience wasn't intended to be about convenience to businesses. Frankly, microstock is probably a better choice for most "official" corporate uses because of the Attribution requirement--among other reasons. Rather I was referring to convenience in coming up with a license that contributors could feel good about using--ev

[Rodracquet]

Hi, I have a dilemma. I am wishing to start a tennis memorabilia collecting society and want to use any ebay item photos as a way to show web viewers what is out there globally without having to buy the item and take my own shots or have to request ebayers for approval to use the pics. I know strictly speaking copyright belongs to the photgrapher, the photos aren't for commercial gain or attempting to re-sell and are often not obtainable any other way......Is anyone going to be really ticked off in the interests of promoting the history of the sport???

[eglencee]

o buy the item and take my own shots or have to request ebayers for approval to use the pics. I know strictly speaking<a href="http://www.hayatsite.com>eglence copyright belongs to the photgrapher, the photos aren't for commercial gain or attempting to re-sell and are

[eglencee]

his article basically says that the Noncomercial License is inconvenient for commercial users who want to use the material without paying for it--but that's really its intent. I am not a lawyer, but the following rules of thumb should probably cover most cases: 1) If you treat your activities as a hobby for tax purposes then they are not commercial. 2) If you treat them as a business for tax purposes (i.e. expenses are deductable) www.hayatsite.com then they are commercial. 3) If a business hires you to do something then you are engaged in commercial activities.