Creative commons non-commercial attribution license

This report surveys the frequency distributions of various interpretations of the terms "commercial use" and "non-commercial use", mainly by U. Internet users. The survey confirms that significantly differing interpretations of "non-commercial" exist. The majority of users tend to identify "commercial" with "for profit". However, the study also shows that "uses by organizations, by individuals, or for charitable purposes are less commercial but not decidedly [considered as] noncommercial" ibid.

Furthermore, the use of works surrounded by or connected with advertisements is largely considered commercial score Many people will interpret it as acceptable to use a work licensed as non-commercial in combination with advertisement for cost-recovery, while others will not.

A major implication from this study is that the definition given in the CC license is ambiguous, since both sides believe that the CC NC license term is "essentially the same as" or "compatible with" their definition ibid. In practice, the interpretations range from considering editorial use of images in a for-profit journal as non-commercial e. Given the large number of potentially contentious licensing cases e. Until this is achieved, any long-term project that considers the use of CC NC licenses will require a careful assessment of legal risks.

We present here some insights we have gained in our own risk management analysis, so as to inform the decisions of others. A non-profit enterprise that buys and sells services is a commercial enterprise according to this and many other definitions. It can consequently obtain commercial advantages, e.

However, licensors that intend to apply permissive interpretations of the NC license often feel obliged to clarify their point in a license interpretation statement e. Importantly, the NC license does not refer to the status of potential users at all; focusing solely on the manner in which a work is used. Both for-profit and non-profit organizations may use NC licenses. However, non-profit organizations probably need to rely on factors other than their status to decide whether they may use NC-licensed works.

The second case of exchanging copyrighted work does allow commercial advantages, focusing only on monetary compensation.

All evaluations of intent only concern the user licensee , not the copyright owner licensor. The latter may well have commercial motives when releasing material under an NC license see, e. With respect to the licensee, the availability of the license does not depend on the type of legal entity, but on the context and goal of the activity in which the work is reproduced or re-used.

For example, a charitable non-profit organization may sell a calendar with CC-NC-licensed images as a means to raise funds. This is considered to be commercial use even by permissive interpretations of the NC-clause e. But what about a general brochure, distributed free-of-charge?

Increases in the membership base or in public recognition translate into a commercial advantage in the form of higher income through membership fees or voluntary contributions. To some extent, non-profit organizations compete with each other for donations and funds that the members of the public are willing to spend on membership fees. If a non-profit nature conservation organization uses an NC-licensed image in an advertisement brochure and the paid membership increases, it could be argued — similarly to the case of the calendar — that this use of the licensed work was primarily intended and directed toward commercial advantage.

In the case of for-profit companies, a commercial advantage can be assumed to be the primary goal in the majority of cases. Still, for example a for-profit journal, university or hospital may have a charter or mission statement that establishes charitable purposes as its ultimate goal, making the assessment of primary intent a non-trivial one.

The principle of primary intent does help with the question of cost recovery. Rutledge argues that the NC license allows for all forms of monetary compensation that relate to recovery of costs, such as printing, postage, and even salaries, since cost recovery cannot reasonably be assumed to be a primary commercial motive.

While this is a reasonable position in connection with monetary cost recovery, it remains doubtful whether it also eliminates concerns about gained or lost non-monetary commercial advantages. Legal case history for assessing the non-commercial or non-profit status of individual actions in which an NC-licensed work is used is probably limited to District Court of Amsterdam However, a rich case history is available in most jurisdictions for the analogous case of assessing the non-profit or charity status of organizations for taxation purposes.

Similarly to the CC NC licenses, such assessment goes beyond a simple calculation of profits. Taxation status is typically assessed by a complex set of rules, governed by law, but in detail often defined by individual taxation authorities.

Despite a long case history and detailed assessment rules, it is possible that an organization achieves non-profit status in one taxation district, and fails to do so in another.

Assessing the non-commercial intent of individual actions in court may be vastly more complicated. The CC NC clause defines wide-ranging limitations to protect the commercial interests of the creator or copyright owner of a work. In our understanding, the following conditions determine whether an NC-licensed work may or may not be re-used:. Any natural or legal person or organization, including commercial enterprises, may exercise licensed rights over an NC-licensed work. The ability to re-use, copy, or derive from a work depends on the context and goal of the activity, not on the type of legal entity exercising the rights.

Charging money for the work as a means to obtain a profit is clearly prohibited; there will be little doubt that this has been the primary intent when exercising the rights granted by an NC-license.

Charging money for the work as a means to recover cost seems initially prohibited. However, cost recovery is likely permitted if a different primary intent and direction can be demonstrated. Regardless of profit or cost recovery, the use of a licensed work may lead to non-monetary commercial advantages.

Arguably, most uncharged uses of a work can be interpreted as an advertisement, and increased public recognition is generally seen as an advantage for any legal entity participating in commerce.

Users of NC-licensed works must thus demonstrate that the use is neither primarily intended for, nor directed towards such increased recognition. In most cases, the allowed use of an NC-licensed work therefore hinges on the question of whether the advertisement effects are primary or not. The following thought examples may demonstrate that the legitimacy of using NC-licensed content may be difficult to decide. Assume that an NC-licensed image is used in these contexts:.

However, by doing so, it is competing with other nature conservation organizations. Most readers would probably consider cases a and b a license violation, but formally all organizations might claim that this particular action is primarily intended for and directed toward a public benefit. Thus, with different degree of likelihood, in each of these cases, a court might or might not decide that the advertisement is directed towards commercial advantages, making the use of the work a violation of the license terms.

Software programs are copyrighted works and can in principle be released under CC licenses. This is, however, not recommended Creative Commons b. Unlike most other copyrighted works, software can be used as a tool to create other works. This is not dependent on the presence of a Share Alike condition.

A work created with the help of a software application is normally an independent creation. The cases where software generates derivative works are fairly limited, e. This is, however, not the primary concern with NC-licensed software. The creator of such work created using NC-licensed software may have full ownership and copyright to it, but is limited by the contractual obligations which arise from using the NC license. The critical question is perhaps: Which level of diligence in preventing commercial use of such works or data sets is required?

Is it sufficient that no commercial use was intended at the time of creation but may the work later be sold? May the author give it as a present to a third party, which may then put it to commercial use?

Or is the author required to prevent this from happening for all times, including binding future copyright heirs? Following the recommendations of Creative Commons, we advise that the only Creative Commons license suitable for software is the CC0 rights release license.

Dedicated software licenses should be used in all other cases. Works licensed under CC licenses that do not include the NC condition are naturally available for non-commercial use. However, a common misconception is that such works and those licensed with an NC condition can always be mixed in a derivative work, creating a new work under the more restrictive license. While it is possible, e. Share Alike prevents the use of a work under a more restrictive license — specifically in this case under an NC license.

License compatibility can be checked, e. More considerations for licensors. Considerations for the public: By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions.

Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of the licensed material may still be restricted for other reasons, including because others have copyright or other rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests, such as asking that all changes be marked or described. Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to respect those requests where reasonable.

More considerations for the public. This content is freely available under simple legal terms because of Creative Commons, a non-profit that survives on donations. If you love this content, and love that it's free for everyone, please consider a donation to support our work.

This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license before using the licensed material. Creative Commons is not a law firm and does not provide legal services. Distributing, displaying, or linking to this deed or the license that it summarizes does not create a lawyer-client or any other relationship.

The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as well. Skip to content. Creative Commons. Attribution-NonCommercial 1. This is a human-readable summary of and not a substitute for the license.

You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.

Attribute this work: NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices: You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.