Wikipedia Loves Art at the Victoria and Albert Museum is a free content photography contest organised by the Victoria and Albert Museum, Wikimedia UK and other Wikipedians. It is due to take place in February 2009 and is part of the wider Wikipedia Loves Art project that month.

The objective for the V&A is to compile a public digital collection of the major art pieces held at the museum. For Wikipedians, the objective is to collect images and use them to illustrate articles throughout Wikipedia.

The goal is to create open content or public domain images of either public domain works or works whose copyright is owned by/held by the Victoria and Albert museum. Essentially, this is crowdsourcing digitisation.

Commercial versus Non-commercial Use

Defining the difference between “commercial” and “non-commercial” can be extremely difficult. Parliament considered and ultimately rejected a proposal to add “non-commercial” to a fair dealing exception during the 1988 revision because of this difficulty. [Footnote 1.] One American court, in relation to a fair use analysis, has stated that the problem with this distinction is that it “somewhat unrealistically paints the world into two corners.” [Footnote 2].

Creative Commons-style licenses, with their attendant restrictions on non-commercial use, are too new to have developed any case law construing the meaning of the term as used in the license. The question of construction of “non-commercial” in relation to Creative Commons (CC) and similar licenses may need to be focused on what the licensor (the author) intends when she uses the term “non-commercial” and what the users think when they read the restriction. When users, both as licensors and as licensees, use the term, do they refer to:

• The use of the work or the status (as a non-profit) of the organisation using it?
• Direct or indirect compensation?
• Monetary or non-monetary compensation?
• A Continental-style private copying exception?

Commercial/non-commercial issues in relation to fair dealing and fair use may not be the best place to start because they have different public policy concerns. Fair dealing and fair use as a policy balances the property rights of the copyright holder with the general public interest. The point of a Creative Commons-style license is not to grant users rights that they already have, but to grant additional rights. Fair dealing and fair use do, however, help to illustrate some of the problems with the term “non-commercial” in relation to the four areas above.

UK copyright law has only recently included the term “non-commercial” in relation to s. 29, the research and private study exception—it was added as part of the implementation of the Information Society Directive. [Footnote 3]. The statute, however, neglects to define the term. The Directive doesn’t categorically define the term either, but it does provide that whether an act is non-commercial “should be determined by that activity as such” and that “the organisational structure and the means of funding concerned are not the decisive factors in this respect.” [Footnote 4]. This is a definition based more on the use of the work rather than the status of the organisation using it—though status is still a factor. This formulation also tracks the American use of the term. [Footnote 5]. It is important to note though that the phrase “non-commercial use” to a layperson may indicate a general right to use by non-profit entities, even though the term is not used in that manner by other law.

Because s. 29 does not define the term, one treatise notes that commercial/non-commercial should be used with their “ordinary meanings”; in other words, a dictionary definition. [Footnote 6]. A dictionary definition also fits into the contract or contract-like nature of a copyright license. The Oxford English Dictionary, in relevant part, defines commercial as “[e]ngaged in commerce; trading”; “[h]aving reference to, or bearing on commerce”; and “looking toward financial profit.” [Footnote 7]. The OED definition sets up a rather broad scope for commercial activities; covering “any activity conducted with a view to making a profit.” [Footnote 8]. This definition raises the issue of whether this includes direct or indirect compensation as profit, and whether that compensation needs to be monetary or non-monetary.

Selling an object for direct profit plainly fits into the commercial category. Outside of this simple case, including indirect compensation into the analysis incorporates a wide variety of activities into the term “commercial”. In the United States, where a body of case law exists dealing with this distinction in relation to fair use and copyright, the Supreme Court states that the question is “whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price.” [Footnote 9]. This view places virtually any use for which there is a market as a commercial use—the “profit” is saving money by not paying the usual price. The “market view” is the same view expressed when referring to the rights holder’s “normal exploitation” of a work, which is specifically demonstrated in relation to database rights in the EU [Footnote 10] or more generally as part of the Berne convention’s “three step test”. [Footnote 11]. The “market view” is also present when examining the encroachment of licensing for photocopies in academia in the UK.

Including non-monetary compensation also broadens “commercial” to include a wider array of activities. In both a U.S. and a Finnish case, a warez group’s web site was seen as commercial because members contributed goods or services in order to receive copyrighted works. [Footnote 12]. This logic has the potential of making online file trading on a quid-pro-quo basis a commercial activity. Because most of the goods involved with Creative Commons-like licenses are digital and presumably freely available on the internet, it is not clear how much of an issue this would be—it would seem to be difficult to barter for a good that is freely available from elsewhere.

UK law doesn’t provide for a general right to make private copies, and allowing non-commercial use would seem to track the Continental concept of private copying—Article 5(2)(b) of the InfoSoc directive. This term could explicitly permit the technically-infringing-but-as-a-practical-matter-unenforceable activities that many people perform every day. Rather than have these activities infringe, Continental systems institute equipment levies to ensure that rights holders receive “fair compensation”. Problems with this framework may arise in the future as technology allows more and more enforcement of restrictions on these everyday activities.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In the end, judicial construction of the term “non-commercial” would likely involve an inquiry into all of the circumstances surrounding a transaction and then considering all of the factors together. Using the market or normal exploitation approach and including non-monetary compensation greatly extends the reach of what is “commercial”. This has two primary affects: (1) many activities may be seen as commercial that were not intended by licensor or are not obvious to the licensee, and (2) licensors have a greater chance of being able to stop an activity because of the broad reach of their potential markets. The market or normal exploitation form of commercial use therefore only gives up uses which are difficult to enforce and don’t currently earn revenue. This approach, however, seems rather narrow.

CC-style licensing concentrates on more liberal notions of use and distribution—users are encouraged to distribute the works in ways that affect the market or normal exploitation—such as P2P systems. Limiting the term commercial to direct monetary compensation may better fit the goals of Creative Commons-like licensing, but, as demonstrated, it is not necessarily the only reading of the term. Creative Commons recognises this issue, and as an example, the generic (US) Creative Commons license defines non-commercial as:

[A]ny manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works. [Footnote 14 - JH note that the licensing structure has changed since 2005 but the language has stayed the same].

The above clause attempts to limit “non-commercial” to direct monetary compensation, and to eliminate any judicial construction of the term to include exchanging works as payment.

It may be advantageous to determine what users feel should be the standard for non-commercial use. Some situations that might be indicative of their views on the subject might be:

• Whether they would consider a website hosting CC-licensed content with advertising, such as Google Ad Words, as non-commercial use.
• Whether they would consider Pay Pal tip jars or other similar donation programs as non-commercial.
• Whether recovering only the actual costs of distribution would be non-commercial, such as charging the cost of a blank CD-R for physical distributions of CC-licensed music.
• Whether recovery of actual operating costs for hosting the material (bandwidth charges, etc) would be considered non-commercial.
• Whether a television station could broadcast CC-licensed material without including advertisements.
• Whether a teacher copying the work for distribution to a class would be non-commercial.
• Whether advertising for a non-profit would be non-commercial.

These situations would help determine what users, both licensors and licensees, mean when they encounter the term “non-commercial”, and consequently whether the licenses fit their intent.

Footnotes.

1. For CDPA s.29 Research and Private Study. See Cornish and Llewelyn at 443, 511
2. Salinger v. Random House, Inc. , 650 F. Supp. 413, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); See Nimmer on Copyright 13.05 [A][1][c]. The court was addressing fair use factor, 17 U.S.C. 107(1) “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes”
3. Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.
4. Id. Recital (42).
5. Nimmer on Copyright 13.05 [A][1][c].
6. Copinger and Skone James on Copyright 9-28.
7. OED.com “commercial”.
8. Copinger and Skone James 9-28.
9. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 562 (1985).
10. The British Horseracing Board Ltd v. William Hill Organisation Ltd (Case C-203/02) 9 November 2004.
11. Exceptions must (1) be confined to certain special cases; (2) not conflict with the normal exploitation of a work; and (3) not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.
12. United States v Slater, 348 F3d 666 (2003, CA7 Ill); Adobe Systems Inc. and Others v. Tomi Kristian Kaajamaa Supreme Court, Helsinki 1 November 1999 [2001] E.C.D.R. 1.
13. See Egypt v Gamal-Eldin [1996] 2 All ER 237, EAT(construing commercial activity as a balancing test in relation to sovereign immunity).
14. “Attribution Non-commercial” 4(b) @: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode> [JH addition in 2008 - note that the new "generic" is the unported licence available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode ]

http://ur1.ca/y41

This survey is very important as people have a difference of opinion on some of the boundaries of what non-commercial means. For a public licence, such as Creative Commons licences, having community input on the meaning of more ambiguous terms such as this is key to building a common understanding: It keeps the “Commons” part a common understanding and not a difference in law for people to argue over.

I have some background research on the non-commercial termm that I’ll try to post over the next few days.

I’m really pleased with the way the JISC-PoWR Handbook has turned out and had a great time participating in the project. Thanks to Marieke, Ed, Richard, Brian, and Kevin for all their hard work and for including me in the project team. There are lots of plans for continuing the work started here, so be sure and stay tuned to the JISC-PoWR blog for more information.

http://jiscpowr.jiscinvolve.org/handbook/

It includes sections and information on open content and open data, as well as some of the general legal issues around preservation on the web.

Any comments on the legal section warmly welcomed.

The Power of Information Taskforce is helping government become more open, transparent and effective through better use of published information.

This competition is asking for your help in developing better ways to publish the vast swathes of non-personal information that the government collects & creates on your behalf

Public data is your data. Tell us what you’d build with it and you could win £20k to develop your idea to the next level.

The main licence for the government data (non-Ordnance Survey) is the Click Use PSI licence by the Office of Public Sector Information, which is quite liberal in its terms. It meets the terms of the Open Definition by the Open Knowledge Foundation as an open licence.

Full details at the Open Knowledge Foundation site - OK London local group.

Coverage: Read Write Web | CNET | o’reilly

To get access to the content, you go to the album site:

http://www.supernaturalsuperserious.com/

It is a really neat flash site with a really cool way of integrating the videos. Down on the lower right corner are the track/video numbers. If you click on them, you get the download in a massive ZIP file. I downloaded number one and it was 245MB — this is because they are High Definition mp4 files. I didn’t see the actual license on the page, and it wasn’t included in the download ZIP file.

The Artistic License is an interesting choice as it is built for software and not content, though I’ll have to dig further into it and how they’ve labeled the content.

To start with, a licence (or license depending on your US/UK perspective) is permission you give someone else to exercise rights that you control. They can be unwritten or written, though unwritten ones tend to not be worth the paper they’re printed on.

Licences differ from assignments, in that when assigning IP rights, such as copyright, you are giving the entire right to someone else, and retaining nothing. You could find yourself infringing the copyright for a work that you created, for example, if you’ve assigned the rights to another. Unless of course they’ve given you a licence to use the work.

In an exclusive licence, the rightsholder grants rights to a licensee AND gives up the right to the IP being licensed for themselves. The end result is that the licensor — the original owner — still owns the IP but has said that they won’t use the right licensed.

In a sole licence, the rightsholder gives only one other person (the licensee) rights over the IP, but is allowed to use the IP themselves. Unlike an exclusive licence, the owner can still use the IP rights (their own) being licensed.

A non-exclusive licence does exactly what it says on the tin — no one has exclusive rights under this licence. You can have multiple licensees, and the licensor has the rights to use the IP as well.

Open content licences, such as Creative Commons, fall into the category of non-exclusive licences. In this approach, you give a licence to the world. In the unported licence, this grant is in Section 3:

3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:

It then goes on to discuss all the different rights granted. Licences read a whole lot like contracts, because most of the time they are contracts as well as licences. However the contract/licence discussion is one for another post. Licences don’t however have to be stuffy and full of legalese. For an example of an informal approach, check out the Spoken Word End-User Licence Agreement.

Other interesting events coming up in Oxford that I hope to attend include…

a BarCamp Oxford

…and two British Computer Society (Oxfordshire branch) events:

How Big Business learned to love Virtual Worlds, with Roo Reynolds talking about IBM, Second Life and other virtual worlds.

What’s Hot, where a guest panel of industry experts run BCS’ own Dragon’s Den.

On this last one, the prize is £100, which won’t get you very far in any business startup (unless you are selling lemonade on the streetcorner), though apparently serious investors will be present and looking for ideas to fund.