Skip to content

Should we use the CC when it’s not truly freeing?

If you haven’t read the well-reasoned article on about not using the non-commercial (NC) clause of the CC license, please do. Recently I saw Benjamin Mako Hill give a talk about free culture, and he showed some graphics that are several years old about the proliferation of CC licenses, especially which types are used. Statistics from Creative Commons from two years ago still show a very high usage of the NC license, especially in comparison to the SA license.

The question I’m wondering is this: If your CC license choice is barely granting more rights than normal copyright gives, should you even both to license the content?

In other words, if you are not allowing anyone to even share the content if there is a hint of commercial activity, such as Google AdSense on their blog?, and they cannot make derivatives, so no remixing, why bother putting a license on it. What can they do above normal copyright? Copy it in its entirety? Might as well just link back to the source instead of mirroring it.

So, that is my question to Jon Phillips et al. Do you want us using any CC license just to spread the usage? Or should we stop using the NC clause and otherwise leave it under regular copyright?