Een paar weken terug luisterde ik naar het radio-programma De Elektronische Eeuw van Herbert Blankesteijn op BNR waarin Jan Willem Broekema van OSOSS (Open Source als Onderdeel van de Software Strategie) onder andere vertelde over het boek “Open gemeenten” dat OSOSS recent had uitgegeven. OSOSS:

Dit boek, waarin naast de inventarisatie meer dan 30 praktijkvoorbeelden beschreven zijn, moet de gehele publieke sector inspireren na te denken over nut en noodzaak bij aanbesteding van ICT: een dwarse zoektocht door alternatief denken. Onder die titel is het eerste exemplaar van “Open Gemeenten” op 17 september 2007 aangeboden aan staatssecretaris Frank Heemskerk van Economische Zaken.

In de uitzending noemde de heer Broekema dat het boek niet meer in gedrukte vorm verkrijgbaar was, maar dat het onder een Creative Commons licentie ter beschikking was gesteld. Zonder verdere informatie op dat moment over het soort CC licentie waaronder het boek ter beschikking was gesteld, leek het mij een goede gelegenheid voor een CC verdienmodel experiment! Wie zou er geld kunnen vragen voor een investering (in tijd en middelen) in het beschikbaar maken van een her-uitgave?

Omdat het boek uiteindelijk onder een BY-NC-SA NL licentie ter beschikking is gesteld, ik in elk geval niet. Dit gebaseerd op de tekst van de licentie zelf, en op de richtlijnen van Creative Commons, zoals hier eerder besproken. Wel kan ik vragen om een vrijwillige bijdrage, bijvoorbeeld aan Creative Commons, op dit moment bezig met een pledge drive.

De onmogelijkheid om bij CC NC licenties geld te vragen voor de investering in tijd en middelen voor het heruitgeven wijkt af van bijvoorbeeld de GPL, welke licentie heeft geleid tot alternatieve verdienmodellen voor free software. Bijvoorbeeld, Red Hat die een (gratis) linux distributie ter beschikking stelt, en geld vraagt voor de cd en handleiding of diensten. (Let wel, ik zeg niet dat OSOSS haar boek niet onder een NC licentie ter beschikking had moeten stellen.)

De incentive om tijd en middelen ter beschikking te stellen in het her-uitgeven van NC werken zal in dit geval ergens anders vandaan moeten komen. In mijn geval is het whuffie, en omdat (de her-editie van) het boek al was klaargemaakt bij deze alsnog de link naar lulu.com, waar je het boek in een zwart-wit uitgave voor € 6,01 (+ shipping) kan nabestellen, hier.

English Summary

(The above post explains how I have made available, through a print-on-demand service, a book from OSOSS, a Dutch organization that promotes “the use of open source as part of the software strategy”. This inspired by a radio-interview with a representative of OSOSS on Dutch radio, in which he mentioned that the book was out-of-print, but licensed under a CC license. As the dissemination of CC licensed works had been on my mind – and in the interest of science! – I decided to make the work available in a re-edition, and possibly ask for a small mark-up (that I would then give away). However, as the book was originally licensed under a BY-NC-SA license, I could not ask for anything other than a voluntary contribution. (Which is logical in a way.) If anything, this little experiment shows how there currently are limited incentives for third parties to invest in making available re-editions of (or derivative works based exclusively on) NC licensed works. Mind, I am not saying that this is a bad thing, just something that is there.

UPDATE: Naar aanleiding van een post op Livre, een update. Misschien was ik hierboven wat te kort, maar voor het eigenlijke maken of bezorgen van de heruitgave van een NC gelicentieerd werk mag wel geld gevraagd worden, zolang dit maar is:

for a service being provided to (in the case of, for example, a for-profit copy shop) or by an allowable NC user incidental to the use of the NC-licensed work (e.g. course packs provided by an educational institutions)

(Zie de Proposed Best Practice Guidelines To Clarify The Meaning Of “Noncommercial” In The Creative Commons Licenses van Creative Commons US onder C.)

De printer mag dus geld vragen voor de dienst van het drukken; ik niet voor de dienst van het klaarmaken. Althans, dit volgens de bovengenoemde richtlijnen van wat NC inhoudt. Met de auteursrechthebbende mag ik altijd iets anders afspreken, maar dit verhoogt de transactiekosten. Dit zoals al eerder hier besproken op TLC. Afijn, je kan het boek bestellen voor € 6,01 plus verzendkosten, met € 0,0 mark-up voor mijzelf. Het is een interessante uitgave, tenminste als je liever over Asterisk leest, dan dat je een Asterix leest ^^.

(Above update to clarify that I myself do not charge any mark-up for making the mentioned book avialable through print-on-demand, and that the in-store price is for the printing and shipping only, which is allowed under the interpretation of Creative Commons of the NC licenses. This in response to a post on Livre.nl that might have confouded this part of my post.)

‡‡ [This is a post from Technology Law Culture: http://tlc.oosterbaan.net/. Olivier Oosterbaan, IT and media lawyer in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, maintains this blog.]

(Picture: A small part of the cover of the book in question. Original work by OSOSS under a BY-NC-SA 3.0 NL license; derivative work (insofar there is one) by Olivier Oosterbaan, and consequently also under a BY-NC-SA 3.0 NL license.)

With this month’s post TLC will talk a little about a pilot project launched by Creative Commons Netherlands and Buma/Stemra, the literally unique Dutch collecting society for broadcast and mechanical rights for music authors. In short, under the pilot, Buma/Stemra will allow its member artists to make their works available using non-commercial Creative Commons licenses. (This was previously not allowed under the Buma/Stemra agreements which, as is common for collecting society agreements, required exclusivity for the collective licensing and collection of royalties and levies.) Conversely, artists who have previously relied on non-commercial CC licenses for dissemination of their work can now become a member of Buma/Stemra so that the organization may collect royalties and levies for commercial uses of their works.

The topic for this post is perhaps old news – although almost untypically topical for TLC, yet a return to developments in the Netherlands – and has been covered elsewhere. So, instead of repeating the news, I would like to focus on one particular aspect of the pilot, the Non-Commercial part. First though, a quote or two from the September 2007 issue of the Buma/Stemra corporate magazine that arrived in the mail just the other day.

Let’s Hear It From Buma/Stemra and Creative Commons

About the Buma/Stemra and Creative Commons Netherlands pilot scheme, Cees Vervoord, Chair of Buma/Stemra, said:

“This initiative is in keeping with our efforts to provide optimal service to our rights holders. I also regard this unique and innovative collaboration between Buma/Stemra and Creative Commons as a first step towards more freedom of choice in the area of exploiting music copyright in the digital world. This initiative makes it abundantly clear to very one that we are open to innovation.”

Paul Keller, of Creative Commons Netherlands, said, among other things:

“[…] [S]ince you are using a licence which is legally sound, you can protect yourself from any unauthorized commercial exploitation of your work.”

(Both quotes from the September 2007 issue of the Buma/Stemra corporate magazine, pages 22 and 23.)

Non-Commercial Explained For This Purpose

I would like to highlight one particular part of the Buma/Stemra CC pilot, and that is the attention to detail in defining what is non-commercial for the purposes of the pilot. In short, non-commercial is not a use for which you would normally expect to get paid. Or, non-commercial is not where Buma/Stemra would normally collect royalties or levies. This in addition to the distinction based on for-profit and not-for-profit users – already discussed here at TLC – that Creative Commons makes. Buma/Stemra and Creative Commons defined “Non-Commercial” for purposes of the pilot as everything that is not “commercial use”, which they defined as follows:

“Within the scope of the pilot between Creative Commons Netherlands and Buma/Stemra, ‘commercial use’ should be taken to mean the following: Every use of the Work by for-profit institutions is qualified as ‘commercial use’. In addition, within the scope of the pilot, distributing or publicly performing or making available online the Work against payment or other financial compensation (including the use of the work in combination with ads, publicity actions or other similar activities intended to generate income for the user or a third party) is qualified as ‘commercial use’. Within the scope of the pilot, ‘commercial use’ also includes the distribution or public performance or having broadcasting organisations make the Work available online, as well as using the Work in hotel and catering establishments, work, sales and retail spaces. This also applies to organisations that use music in or in addition to the performance of their duties, such as, for example, churches, schools (including dancing schools), institutions for welfare work, etc. Separate licenses are available from Buma/Stemra for such kinds of use.”

(From the: Fact Sheet Pilot Creative Commons Netherlands and Buma/Stemra [pdf]; from the Institute of Information Law at my alma mater, one of the Creative Commons Netherlands partners.)

This definition is interesting in light of the earlier posts “Japan Picture Book, 3: Non-Commercial CC Licenses, But What Does It Mean?” and “Japan Picture Book, 4: Non-Commercial CC Licenses, But What Does It Mean (Continued)?” on this blog, discussing what the “Non-Commercial” module in CC licenses might be understood to mean.

In my opinion, the pilot and its definition of Non-Commercial show three things beyond the definition itself. First, “Non-Commercial” is not a straightforward term, since Buma/Stemra and Creative Commons Netherlands found it necessary to define the term. Second, what is and what is not commercial also depends on the context of the use, more in particular on pre-existing licensing and business models, whereas the last bit of language from the definition follows existing Buma/Stemra practices. Finally, and this is new, parties other than the actual licensors (authors) and the license stewards can define the, in this case, CC licenses further.

‡‡ [This is a post from Technology Law Culture: http://tlc.oosterbaan.net/. Olivier Oosterbaan, IT and media lawyer in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, maintains this blog.]

(Picture: Under a CC BY-ND 2.0 license, by Kennisland. Note: This post was posted on the second Sunday of the month, not the first.)