When Life And Work Blend, Everything Is Commercial Use
from the welcome-to-the-way-we-live dept
I was recently having a talk with a friend who was trying to determine what to do next with his life. He's not happy with his job and wants a "goal" for the future -- but isn't really sure what he wants to do. I suggested focusing on a hobby in the short term and devoting plenty of time to it. He felt that was the wrong approach, because a hobby is separate from a job, and the two would never connect. While that could happen, the internet today has made it increasingly easy to turn a hobby into a job in some way or another. It's not that you need to turn a hobby into a job. Sometimes it's good for a hobby to just be a hobby. But, if you focus on what you're passionate about, I think eventually different job opportunities start to come to you.But it's this blurring of "personal" and "work" lives that again has me pondering if there really is a meaningful distinction between "commercial use" and "non-commercial use." Some of this debate first came about years ago, when some web publishers claimed that their RSS feeds were "for non-commercial use only," but what does that mean? If I read your site as part of my job, have I violated that rule? If I learn information from your feed that allows me to make money, have I violated that rule? More recently, there have been proposals to separate copyright violations, such that "non-commercial use" is allowed. But, again, you quickly run into very questionable scenarios. If my personal blog has Google AdSense on it, is it commercial use? If I end up getting a job because of my "personal use" of your content, does it suddenly morph into "commercial use"? The questions get more and more confusing, and the mess would make less and less sense.
These days, it seems that the distinction between personal, professional, commercial and non-commercial are becoming increasingly meaningless -- and that's not a bad thing.
With that said, I have to agree with Gordon Haff over at News.com that Creative Commons is making a mistake in trying to better define the meaning of "commercial use" for its "non-commercial" licenses. I'm already struggling with its current definition. I'm working on a presentation for a conference I'm attending next month, and found some images that are under a CC license that allows non-commercial use. I'm not getting paid for the talk itself, but I am doing it as a representative of Techdirt, which is a commercial entity. Is that commercial use? The presentation isn't about our business, though, but about what I usually write about here. Is that non-commercial use? I'm assuming it's non-commercial use, but these days, I have a hard time understanding what the difference is at all, and Haff is right that it's likely to lead to more confusion. The real answer is to simplify CC licenses, not make them even more complex.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: commercial use, copyright, creative commons, personal use
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Non-Commercial
Yes it is. It is, because it means that everything is becoming commercial. And that's a bad thing.
We need to have some space in our lives - and some space on the internet - that is not dedicated to dog-eat-dog scratching for a living.
We need space and time in our ives to do things simply because we love them, not so they can be monetized.
The conversion of everything on the web - or anywhere - into a commercial good is a sympton of a society that has collapsed in on itself, not one that is healthy and vigorous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another way to look at it
I think these sorts of definitions are sort of like drawing lines in the sand. Sometimes they are helpful in organizing and prioritizing our lives, and sometimes all it accomplishes is putting people in boxes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Missing the point...
The difference is things for non-commercial use are intended to mean that you can't use that item specifically to make money... It shouldn't apply to knowledge, as knowledge isn't a preventable phenomena... It's meant to limit industry-specific tools from being used to generate revenue without being properly licensed.
An example would be a piece of software that is integral to an industry's success, being offered freely to students with the expectation that those student's won't take advantage of the comparative generosity.
While the example may be flawed or highlight the issues behind copyright in general, it still shows the basic meaning of the "not-for-commercial-use" clause. Basically they prefer not, but don't care if you pirate it; as long as you don't pirate it to make money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Missing the point...
The Truth Beacon signalled:
So, is Mike’s proposed use of that Creative-Commons-licensed content “commercial use" under your definition, or not?
Does that mean you’re in favour of getting rid of the “commercial use” use distinction in CC licensing, or not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
greed
It's a stupid idea that's been around and I celebrate when the stupid idea leaves.
I call all things personal use that I use, because I use them, makes it simple for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Non-Commercial
When we've reached the point where our commercial enterprises are done for the love of it and not just a daily grind of misery 1/3 of every day, then we've truly achieved something great. We allow society to flourish without turning all its workers into factory drones.
If you can look at the concept and see it as a bad thing, I worry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Non-Commercial
For example, could a farmer love the land and still sell the vegetables he grows? Can a poet make a living from his poetry? I hope so...
Commerce is not in and of itself bad. Although I do agree with SD's sentiment that when we reduce everything in our lives to "dog-eat-dog scratching for a living" we are in trouble both as individuals and as a society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What about us educators?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There is little room for non-commercial anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not just educators
I use my personal blogs, online networks, etc. to support my work all the time. As "non-commercial" becomes more and more interconnected with "commercial", lines in the sand are going to be more and more arbitrary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hobbies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about...
If it makes you money, it should make me something as well.
Don't sell something you got for free, and "trickle down" your wealth to the people that allowed you to make it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How about...
Mike, your use of an image in a presentation is non-commercial. In no way can anyone make the claim that you using an image will make you a profit. Done. How hard is that?
Yes, there are edge cases that can get a bit murky. And yes, if you over-analyze it to death you will perpetually go around in circles. I prefer the common sense approach.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The problem is lawyers.
Really much of the problem beyond that is simply that everyone assumes everything is worth money. It's not - the value of anything is relative. To me (whatever) may be a hobby that I'd do for free, someone else may expect payment. Another person may expect big payments. Same with the recipient, they may want to pay lots, some or nothing for the item. Society as a whole expects everything to have a $ value - commercial entities are even worse.
The fact remains that most things people regard as 'basic services' should be free - and again, opinions differ. This could be news, public transport, flatulence, whatever.
The way things are going it'll be if you shop at 'ShopX' you'll live in a ShopX complex with ShopX food, clothes and so forth. That's what the commercial companies want - it's brand loyalty after all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]