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.)

After looking at the possibility of using non-copyrighted digital reproductions of public domain works last month, this (and next) month TLC will take a detailed look at choosing a suitable (Creative Commons) license for the Japan book. Since I want to account for the possibility to use additional (CC-licensed) art-work from third-parties, I have to take some extra care that the terms of the out-license (the license applicable to the entire work, including my original works) are not incompatible with the in-licenses (applicable to the art of others), and the other way around.

As it will become clear that Creative Commons licenses know a few drawbacks, I will first highlight what the possible reasons for using a CC-license in the first place are. After then describing the different possible uses and distribution methods for which I want to allow now and in the future, we’ll dive right into the different Creative Commons license options (modules), hopefully resurfacing on the other end with a license that fits the purpose.

(Because of the length, this topic will be split into two post, one this month, one next month.)

Why a CC License?

The short answer to why you would want to use a CC license is that they are popular.

The long answer is that they are popular because they are generally permissive, giving others a great degree of liberty to use and re-use the content licensed, which can be appealing to creators. (In my case it is, as I am looking more for kudos/whuffie than money in what is essentially a hobby project. For my purposes, I am disregarding any loss-leading purposes or split revenue models for which you might want to use a permissive – CC or other – license.)

More importantly, the popularity of the Creative Commons licenses means that they are widely used, and like the GPL, many people will end up having a fair understanding of what they mean. Granted, there is a fair amount of discussion about CC concepts themselves and the specific meaning of particular license modules, such as the Non-Commercial (NC) module, previously discussed here on TLC. But, I think this discussion shows that people are invested in the Creative Commons licenses, and work towards a better understanding of the licenses, much like the GPL.

(A more practical point is that if you are looking at others using and reusing your work, applying a CC license, rather than a different permissive license, makes it easier to find your work given the familiarity with the licenses and the CC-focused tools and search options that exist.)

Consider Your Future Use

If I use only my own, original, content I can re-license the work under a less restrictive or more restrictive license depending on my needs, and choosing the right license from the outset is less important. That being said, as you can not revoke a CC license, re-licensing under a more restrictive license will only carry weight if you also control to some extent distribution and/or production of your work.

If I also use content of others, I must make sure that whatever license I end up applying, or would like to apply in the future, does not conflict, in whole or in part, with the license or licenses applicable to the works I use. Carving out or replacing those parts is likely to be a painstaking process. For example, if there is a chance that how I use the works could be seen as Commercial, for example because money changes hands for the hard-copy version, then I cannot use works licensed under a Non-Commercial license.

I also have to consider what kind of uses I would like to allow for, for example whether I will allow others to make derivative works, or distribute or re-use my works commercially. Again, if I use the content of others, I need to look at the terms that apply to those upstream works to make sure that they also allow for such future uses.

Mixing and (Mis) Matching the Licenses

The six major available CC licenses move on a sliding scale from permissive to restrictive (given that even the restrictive one is more permissive than all rights reserved), depending on the “modules” that apply. The order would be, from permissive to a little less so: CC By, CC By-SA, CC By-NC, CC By-ND, CC By-NC-SA, and CC By-NC-ND. (The By-NC-ND versions appears to be the default for many services, including, as it turns out, the Wordpress installation I am using at this blog, and at Flickr, the photo sharing site I use.)

Some CC licenses are incompatible. Consequently, I have to take care that when selecting works of others to use, I do not select works that carry a license that is incompatible with whatever license I would like to use now or in the future. The basic incompatibility is that of ND (No Derivatives) licenses with SA (Share Alike) licenses.

But can I use works that are originally license under a less restrictive license? What if, for example, I would like to license the Japan book under a By-SA license, can I then use works that are licensed under a By license? The licenses say:

You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.

I think that, since the original work remains available under the By license, and I mention the original license terms for that work, I can license the entire resulting work under, say, a By-SA license.

The other way around is not possible. I cannot apply a By license to the resulting work, and use original works license under say a By-SA license, or a By-NC license.

So, basically, the licenses applicable to the works of third parties that I might use in the book need to be less restrictive than the license under which I would like to make the resulting entire work available. Luckily, not to get lost, there is a useful Creative Commons license compatibility wizard from Creative Commons Taiwan, I can heartily recommend it. (Creative Commons United States has not yet approved any compatibility between CC licenses.)

Now, let’s look at the different CC modules in more detail.

Call Me By Your Name (Attribution)

This is an attribute that all CC licenses share. It is simple, it requires attribution to the creator (or a group or institute since version 3.0). CC By is the simplest, and most permissive of all CC licenses, short of dedication to the public domain. However, you still need to take into account the moral rights / droit moral of the author. As the short version of the By 3.0 license mentions:

Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights.

I am not sure what the moral rights of an author are in the United States, if any, but in The Netherlands, and from what I understand in most if not all continental European countries, they basically give the author, in addition to a right of attribution, a right of integrity (of the author). This later right allows the author to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other alteration (modification) of the work which might prejudice the honor or the reputation of the author as such.

Since version 3.0 of the licenses, there is, at least in the basic unported (more on that next month) version, a limited non-assert provision (covenant) whereby the author promises, for jurisdictions where adaptations are seen as conflicting with the moral rights of the author, not to assert such moral rights.

Final point. What is a sensible way of complying with the attribution requirement in the context of the book? The CC licenses require that, in addition to keeping intact copyright notices, I provide “reasonable to the medium or means” I use, the name (or pseudonym), name of the work, and “to the extent reasonably practicable” any URI pointing back to the copyright or license information. The URI pointing back would most commonly be a web page. I wonder how reasonably practical it is to provide a list of web addresses, reasonably practical I think.

Next Month: Commercial and Non-Commercial, No Derivatives and Share Alike, and Porting

That’s it for this month. Next month, TLC will look at the other available options, Commercial and Non-Commercial, No Derivatives and Share Alike, and jurisdiction specific (ported) licenses. Until next month!

‡‡ [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: Creative Commons License Buttons. See also http://creativecommons.org/policies/.)