Talk:Creative Commons NonCommercial license

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thoughtful justification?

I do not think that there is any organization which (1) uses NC licenses and (2) has published an explanation of why they use these licenses and (3) has an explanation which actually matches what Creative Commons says about these licenses. That is, I think that all organizations which use these licenses do so with obvious misunderstanding of what the license says and how reuse works.

Can anyone provide examples of organizations which understand the license and use it? This Wikipedia article would be better to have the best examples of organizations using this license. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specific interpretations

The time might be right to start collecting published interpretations of the noncommercial license. Interpretations of individual organizations might not be reliable sources, because they lack any claim to being a consensus view, but also some interpretations come from reputable organizations which I would expect to be conservative and not interpret the license beyond what it states.

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of the subjects of articles, and instead we only discuss sources here. I am not sure what we can do with less robust sources but here is an example:

SUISA published "Creative Commons", an interpretation of the noncommercial license. My opinion of this work is that it is a fanciful interpretation and unlike anything Creative Commons has ever said about their own license. One line says that the CC noncommercial license means that the work cannot be used by a "profit-making entity of any kind whatsoever" or "involving a counterpart, of a financial or other nature". I will not interpret the license, except to say that I am not aware of any source where Creative Commons or any consensus statement has ever said anything like this.

Over the years I have seen other similarly bold interpretations that surprised me. Right now I cannot recall specifically where. Does anyone have other specific interpretations published by reputable organizations? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]