a) Mr Pooge who publishes cartoons CC-NC and waits for publishers to beat a path to his door begging for commercial licenses
b) Mr Patchit who publishes cartoons copyleft and waits for no-one.
Now let us imagine there is a copyleft journal (a commercial publication paid for by subscribers) in need of something to lighten its pages. They can contract a lawyer to negotiate an expensive license with Mr Pooge or they can simply republish Mr Patchit’s work with zero overhead.
If both cartoonists are sufficiently amusing it’s a bit of a no-brainer isn’t it?
Now, if the journal finds Mr Patchit’s work produces a commensurate increase in subscription, or an otherwise enthusiastic reaction to the inclusion of the cartoons, it has a choice:
a) Keep the profits and risk Mr Patchit’s work drying up
b) Sponsor Mr Patchit in proportion to the value of his work to this journal
The leads to an observation of the following outcome:
a) Mr Pooge is still waiting for a phone call from a lawyer in the dying copyright industry to negotiate a lucrative deal. But hey, at least there are a few non-commercial publications that promote his work in the meantime – for as long as they survive unpaid.
b) Mr Patchit meanwhile has sponsorship from umpteen copyleft publications and other enthusiastic businesses that patronise him. And MANY publications republishing his work building up his audience – and without any legal worries or overheads on their part.
We can conclude:
a) Mr Pooge in prohibiting commercial use by potential business customers does not get their business. He’s left waiting for major monopolists desperate for his work, and can only be promoted by people not making any money.
b) Mr Patchit says goodbye to the traditional copyright industry and embraces commission, patronage and promotion from all who reject copyright.
[...] This is a syndicated post, which originally appeared at Mimi and Eunice » IP. View original post. [...]
That’s why I don’t understand licenses like GPL or CC-*-NC.
I mean, propaganda is propaganda. Let everyone know about you, and then think about true compensation.
Comparison with the GPL is kinda stupid. The GPL doesn’t restrict ‘commercial’ use at all (Eg Redhat, Canonical, Amazon, Google, IBM etc are all using GPL code commercially) it only forbids trying to pass off a derived work as your own copyrighted product. GPL is like CC-SA, not CC-NC.
[...] Non-Commercial Posted on October 9, 2010 by Vinny via ninapaley.com [...]
I use CC-NC not because I think all commercial entities are evil, but because I wish to maintain control over where my work is used commercially. Granting all commercial entities everywhere the same automatic free access to my work I’ve happily granted the Free Culture community strikes me as a Bad Thing.
I would add to Crosbie Fitch’s above example; say Mr. Patchit wakes up one morning to find his cartoon on the website of a company he really hates, advertising a product he finds entirely offensive. Perhaps Mr. Patchit’s cartoon even becomes wildly successful as an advertisement for said product, to the point where Mr. Patchit’s copyleft-friendly credit becomes strongly associated with said company and their product in the public consciousness. Mr. Patchit is forced to do one of two things. He can publicly address the issue in defense of his own beliefs and integrity; an action which risks seeming grumpy, ungrateful, hypocritical, and unworthy of his “success” and causing a backlash which could permanently taint his reputation and career. Alternatively he can embrace hypocrisy, stay quiet how he feels about the whole thing, never again voice his true feelings about the product or the company, and be forever stifled and miserable at his own loss of personal integrity.
That may be an extreme and wildly unlikely example, but in my career as with all things I try to hope for the best whilst preparing for the worst. If I woke up one day to find my work advertising some product I disapprove of by some company or organization I particularly hate, the little credit back to me would just not be worth the grief; in fact it would cause more. I’m perfectly willing to live without that extra bit of automatic exposure for the sake of maintaining control over which commercial entities I’m seen to associate with, while continuing to contribute to Free Culture.
Rob, copyright is simply a reproduction monopoly. It has nothing to do with what are known as moral rights, e.g. against misattribution (plagiarism) and misrepresentation (false claims of endorsement, explicit or implicit).
If people are at liberty to copy each other’s published works, that doesn’t mean they can be dishonest when they do so.
I’m not sure how control is freedom, though, Rob. And you haven’t granted your work to the free culture community if they can’t afford to use it except as a hobby.
Weird. Can’t Flattr — seems like there’s an invalid link involved. Cute 404 page from Flattr, though.