Comments on: Non-Commercial Use Restriction Removed From This Blog

By: Commercial Exploitation of Content and the Instagram Story « UK Web Focus

Commercial Exploitation of Content and the Instagram Story « UK Web Focus — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:01:35 +0000

[...] work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. As described in a blog post this licence applies to textual content published by the author and (unless stated otherwise) guest [...]

By: SpotOn London 2012: Social Media Analytics for R&D: a Catalan Vision | SpotOn

Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:26:05 +0000

[...] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License, as described in Brian’s blog. [...]

By: My Activities for Open Access Week 2011 « UK Web Focus

My Activities for Open Access Week 2011 « UK Web Focus — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:41:10 +0000

[...] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. As described in a blog post this licence applies to textual content published by the author and (unless stated otherwise) guest [...]

By: Brian Kelly (UK Web Focus)

Brian Kelly (UK Web Focus) — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 17:29:19 +0000

Hi Andy
The change wasn’t made as a direct result of UK Government changes for funding higher education. However there has been a view that public sector funding shouldn’t be used for commercial purposes. However there have been recent suggestions, from those working in the sector, that the UK higher education sector should be (could be) influential in stimulating the UK’s economy. One way of doing this is to encourage the commercial sector to exploit ideas and content produced within thew sector. Although I don’t expect this blog to do this, I am wishing to send a signal that this is a laudable goal. I should also add that this isn’t meant to be taken as support for the government’s cuts – my support for Creative Commons dates back to its launch, which happened under a previous government and political and economic environment.

I also that although universities may be not-for-profit organisations they are commercial entities. Avoiding the NC clause is useful in removing ambiguities.

By: Andy Powell

Andy Powell — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:04:23 +0000

I wondered if you had dropped the NC restriction so that your content could be used in the new world of UK universities :-)

Although, actually… I have never understood why use by UK universities hasn’t been considered ‘commercial’?

By: Stephen Downes

Stephen Downes — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 21:13:58 +0000

> I, for one, would be cautious about using an NC image in a presentation at a fee-charging conference, for example.

If you refuse to allow people to access the resource unless they pay you money, you’re charging for the resource.

If, on the other hand, you have a fee-based conference, and at the same ti e offer access to a resource for everyone, not just fee-paying people, then you are not charging, and it’s a non-commercial use.

It;s a simple distinction, and the only people who have a problem with it are those who want to make money by preventing access to the work.

> they MUST attribute the source, where your original remains accessible without charge.

They must attribute it to the author, which they can do by saying ‘by Stephen Downes’. If they’re nice, they’ll provide the URL — but, of course, you won’t know what the URL is until you’ve *already* paid for access. And this, meanwhile, all depends on me having enough money to provide access on my web site,.

By: Paul Miller

Paul Miller — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 21:04:23 +0000

About time, Brian! ;-) But why retain the SA restriction?

And Stephen, a ‘commercial’ use of your content might not CHARGE for access to it. I, for one, would be cautious about using an NC image in a presentation at a fee-charging conference, for example. You’re placing an obstacle in front of use and attributed dissemination of your work. I’m not trying to profit from it; I am trying to SPREAD it!

And even if some third party were to consider reselling your content, they MUST attribute the source, where your original remains accessible without charge.

By: Stephen Downes

Stephen Downes — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 16:14:58 +0000

I use the NC clause in all my work, and my motivation, rather than the straw man argument typically presented by pro-commercialization arguments, is very pragmatic: I do not want people to restrict access to my work.

The point here is, when people ‘commercialize’ content, such as my writing, what they are doing is making money by charging for access to the work. This means that, if someone does not pay them money, they will deny that person access to the work. This is wrong. This is not what is meant by ‘free’.

By: dkernohan

dkernohan — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 13:22:31 +0000

Good for you, Brian. About time!