Creative Commons Continues To Try To Help Courts Understand What Its NonCommercial License Means

from the important-stuff dept

Over the years we've expressed some concerns about the NonCommercial license option from Creative Commons. Even as we're incredibly supportive of CC, the NonCommercial license often seemed to raise more questions than answers -- to the point that some have argued that it actually harmed CC's brand and resulted in significant confusion for how CC licenses work. There have even been suggestions that CC should drop the NC license option altogether.

To its immense credit, people at Creative Commons have appeared to take these concerns quite seriously over the past few years, doing quite a bit of work to try to clarify what NonCommercial means for the purpose of the license. Our specific concern is that NonCommercial could mean all different things to different people. If you're using a NonCommercial CC-licensed image on a personal blog and you have ads on that blog (even if you don't make much money from it) is that non commercial? If you use it in a tweet and your Twitter bio promotes your business is that non commercial?

Two years ago we wrote about Creative Commons stepping in to file an amicus brief in a case that raised some specific issues concerning a NonCommercial license. An educational non-profit, Great Minds, sued FedEx over FedEx Office shops photocopying some Great Minds works for educational entities, even though the works were licensed under CC's BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. Great Minds argued that because FedEx made money from copying, it's "commercial" and thus in violation of the license. Creative Commons stepped into that lawsuit and explicitly stated that Great Minds interpretation was wrong.

In the FedEx case, both the district court and the 2nd Circuit appeals court rejected Great Minds' interpretation and tossed out the lawsuit saying that the license in question did not limit FedEx from charging for copies. Great Minds also filed a nearly identical case against Office Depot in California, which also was dismissed, despite Great Minds claiming that this case is different than the FedEx one (specifically, it argued that Office Depot employees were "actively soliciting" schools to copy Great Minds' works). The court didn't buy it.

That case has now been appealed to the 9th Circuit (who, as we've noted all too frequently, mucks up copyright cases). And Creative Commons is back again asking the court if it can file an amicus brief again. This seems like the perfect situation for an amicus brief, given that Creative Commons certainly should understand its licenses the best. The proposed brief is well worth a read.

Creative Commons appreciates the valuable contributions to the development of open educational resources made by Great Minds, along with its use of a standard CC public license to enable broad reuse of the materials it produces. However, its interpretation of the Creative Commons license at issue in this lawsuit is incorrect. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit correctly determined in Great Minds’ prior suit against another copy shop, FedEx Office, the license authorizes a bona fide non-commercial user to discharge her licensed rights by directing a third party like Office Depot to make copies at her instruction. Creative Commons welcomes and respectfully seeks a similar holding from this Court:

Under the Creative Commons “NonCommercial” license at issue, a bona fide non-commercial user may engage contractors to exercise the non-commercial user’s own licensed rights on behalf and at the direction of the noncommercial user, irrespective of whether the contractor is itself non-commercial actor.

Going into details, CC explains how Great Minds is completely misinterpreting its NC license term:

The CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license fully authorizes the conduct that Great Minds contends on appeal is unlawful. The only licensee here is the school district. Under the terms of the license and prevailing principles of law, a school district may permissibly use Office Depot as a means by which the school district exercises its own licensed rights. The license does not restrict the school district to using only its own employees to exercise those rights; it allows the school district to engage anyone—employees and non-employee contractors alike—to do so. To establish a rule that denies a licensee the ability to use non-employee actors to exercise the rights it is lawfully entitled to exercise would contravene the plain language of the license and established precedent.

To be sure, Office Depot could not on its own initiative make copies of Great Minds’ curricular materials and sell them for a profit. In that scenario, Office Depot would not be acting at the direction of a bona fide licensee, would not be shielded by any bona fide licensee’s license, and thus would itself need to rely on the terms and conditions of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0—including limiting its conduct to non-commercial purposes when reproducing the licensed work. But that is not what is alleged here. Instead, on the facts as pleaded, the school district has, under its license from Great Minds, engaged Office Depot to make copies and paid Office Depot for the service, just as it could have paid an employee to make the same copies at an Office Depot store. In that scenario, Office Depot is not a licensee in its own right, and its own, independent purpose is analytically irrelevant.

Hopefully the 9th Circuit follows the lead of the 2nd and agrees that Great Minds is misreading the NC part of the license. This would go a long way towards further establishing that NC licenses aren't so limiting.

Filed Under: copying, copyright, creative commons, licenses, nc, noncommercial
Companies: creative commons, fedex, great minds, office depot

Terrible Ruling: EU Decides That Mere Links Can Be Direct Infringement

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

Last year, we talked about an important copyright case in the EU regarding whether or not linking to infringing material was, in itself, infringing. The case involved a blogger in the Netherlands, Geen Stijl News ("GS Media") linking to some pre-publication Playboy photos. There had been an earlier case, the Svensson case where the European Court of Justice got things right with regards to whether or not hyperlinks could be infringing, but there were some questions left open in that ruling. The court in the Svensson case found that linking to authorized content wasn't infringing. But what about unauthorized content?

And now we have the ruling and it's not very good. Some are trying to spin it as a good ruling, because it basically says that if the link is not for profit, then it's not infringing, but the worrisome part is that if the link is considered "for profit" then it can be direct infringement. Basically, the court tries to split the baby here. It notes concerns that many people had about how posting a mere link to content could be infringement, in that many times those posting the link will have no idea if the original content is authorized. But rather than actually deal with that specific issue, it just basically said "well, if it's a for profit effort, then they can afford to figure out if the content is authorized."

when the posting of hyperlinks is carried out for profit, it can be expected that the person who posted such a link carries out the necessary checks to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published on the website to which those hyperlinks lead, so that it must be presumed that that posting has occurred with the full knowledge of the protected nature of that work and the possible lack of consent to publication on the internet by the copyright holder. In such circumstances, and in so far as that rebuttable presumption is not rebutted, the act of posting a hyperlink to a work which was illegally placed on the internet constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29.

Some are celebrating the flip side, which says that if the linking is not for profit and without knowledge that the work is infringing, then it's not infringing, but even that is troubling. Here's what the court says for the "not for profit" linking:

For the purposes of the individualised assessment of the existence of a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, it is accordingly necessary, when the posting of a hyperlink to a work freely available on another website is carried out by a person who, in so doing, does not pursue a profit, to take account of the fact that that person does not know and cannot reasonably know, that that work had been published on the internet without the consent of the copyright holder.

Indeed, such a person, by making that work available to the public by providing other internet users with direct access to it (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 February 2014, Svensson and Others, C‑466/12, EU:C:2014:76, paragraphs 18 to 23) does not, as a general rule, intervene in full knowledge of the consequences of his conduct in order to give customers access to a work illegally posted on the internet. In addition, where the work in question was already available with unrestricted access on the website to which the hyperlink provides access, all internet users could, in principle, already have access to it even the absence of that intervention.

But what the hell does all that mean in practice? Well, that's a complete mess. First of all, as we've been discussing for many, many, many years, drawing the line between "commercial" and "non-commercial" is not nearly as easy as it seems -- and it's basically the same for "for profit" and "not for profit" in the EU's new standard. Just last week we wrote about yet another legal dispute over that exact fuzzy boundary. In an age where anyone can put ads on their site, or use social media to promote their own work or business, how do you determine what's for profit? It's not hard to see how a copyright holder may, for example, point to someone linking to an unauthorized copy of their work and then point to a tweet promoting their work, and say that "well this person uses social media for profit, so this link is infringing."

And, of course, it's even worse for aggregators, search engines and the media. All of those will be considered for profit, so any link to infringing content may now be considered infringing itself. That's... really bad for the internet in Europe. You can see why the Court of Justice tried to split the baby here, but you should remember that splitting the baby isn't a good result. It's designed to threaten to kill the baby to flush out a better result. In this case, one hopes that the end result of this dangerous ruling will flush out an improved copyright law in the EU that doesn't make links infringing. Instead, we seem likely to be getting the exact opposite.

Filed Under: cjeu, commercial, copyright, court of justice, eu, eucj, for profit, linking, noncommercial, not for profit
Companies: geen stijl, gs media, playboy, sanoma

Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?

from the a-good-question dept

While we're big fans of Creative Commons in general, for many years, we've raised questions about some of the licenses/clauses -- with the NonCommercial one being of particular concern. Almost four years ago, we worried about the very blurry line between what was commercial and what was non-commercial, and how trying to separate them out in a license could lead to serious problems. Two years ago, Nina Paley also argued about significant problems with the NonCommercial licenses, and how they actually hurt Creative Commons itself in the long run by creating branding confusion. In particular, many people think that all CC licenses bar commercial use, even though that's not the case at all.

Given that, it's interesting to see a suggestion over at the website for Students for Free Culture to take this a bit further and suggest that as Creative Commons is exploring its next round of licenses, it's time to get rid of both the NonCommercial clause and the NoDerivatives clause, arguing that they both run counter to the nature of free or open culture:

The two proprietary clauses remaining in the CC license set are NonCommercial (NC) and NoDerivatives (ND), and it is time Creative Commons stopped supporting them, too. Neither of them provide better protection against misappropriation than free culture licenses. The ND clause survives on the idea that rightsholders would not otherwise be able protect their reputation or preserve the integrity of their work, but all these fears about allowing derivatives are either permitted by fair use anyway or already protected by free licenses. The NC clause is vague and survives entirely on two even more misinformed ideas. First is rightsholders’ fear of giving up their copy monopolies on commercial use, but what would be considered commercial use is necessarily ambiguous. Is distributing the file on a website which profits from ads a commercial use? Where is the line drawn between commercial and non-commercial use? In the end, it really isn’t. It does not increase the potential profit from work and it does not provide any better protection than than Copyleft does (using the ShareAlike clause on its own, which is a free culture license).

The second idea is the misconception that NC is anti-property or anti-privatization. This comes from the name NonCommercial which implies a Good Thing (non-profit), but it’s function is counter-intuitive and completely antithetical to free culture (it retains a commercial monopoly on the work). That is what it comes down to. The NC clause is actually the closest to traditional “all rights reserved” copyright because it treats creative and intellectual expressions as private property. Maintaining commercial monopolies on cultural works only enables middlemen to continue enforcing outdated business models and the restrictions they depend on. We can only evolve beyond that if we abandon commercial monopolies, eliminating the possibility of middlemen amassing control over vast pools of our culture.

Most importantly, though, is that both clauses do not actually contribute to a shared commons. They oppose it. The fact that the ND clause prevents cultural participants from building upon works should be a clear reason to eliminate it from the Creative Commons license set. The ND clause is already the least popular, and discouraging remixing is obviously contrary to a free culture. The NonCommercial clause, on the other hand, is even more problematic because it is not so obvious in its proprietary nature. While it has always been a popular clause, it’s use has been in slow and steady decline.

Of course, as they note, the NonCommercial clause is still used pretty frequently -- though often without much thought given to why. The site suggests that perhaps those clauses could actually be rebranded or moved out of Creative Commons directly, to keep CC more focused on true open culture efforts.

It's an interesting proposal all around, and we're already seeing a fair bit of buzz about it. It will be worth watching to see if it really gets any traction.

Filed Under: creative commons, culture, derivatives, free culture, noderivatives, noncommercial, open culture

Are Non-Commercial Creative Commons Licenses A Bad Idea? Nina Paley & Cory Doctorow Debate...

from the clash-of-the-titans dept

Venerable author Cory Doctorow and I engaged in a friendly email debate this Summer, with the intention of sharing it to illuminate some issues confronting Free Culture and Creative Commons licenses. It's quite long, but hits on many topics of interest to Techdirt readers.

Read Paley & Doctorow argue over Non-Commercial licenses

Cory releases his books under -NC ("Non-Commercial") licenses. The -NC restriction is Creative Commons' most popular, but has a lot of problems, including incompatibility with Free licenses. As an alternative, I recommend the Creator Endorsed Mark used with a copyleft (such as Share-Alike) license. The sparks fly from there! (Actually it's all very civil, but if I say sparks fly maybe more people will read it.)

I'm curious to read how the Techdirt community weighs on on these issues, so please comment.

Filed Under: cory doctorow, creative commons, nina paley, noncommercial
Companies: creative commons