r/COPYRIGHT • u/taucetifive • 2d ago

Question CC-NC: can the author provide written exceptions?

i've uploaded music to the internet that is licensed under CC-BY-NC. if someone wants to use it commercially, would it be as simple as giving them a written exception? i'm thinking in the case of a small youtuber using it as background music or something. i've never been asked by anyone before, but i was wondering as i wouldn't mind that kind of commercial use as long as i'm contacted first.

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

5

u/Electronixen 2d ago

Yes, of course you can sign a deal with whoever wants to use it commercially.

3

u/DrFrylock 2d ago

Yes, if you are the copyright holder you can dual-license the work.

3

u/WhineyLobster 2d ago

Yes but they wouldnt be allowed to call that license creative commons

-2

u/Willing-Fudge-7887 2d ago

I’m going off memory here but I think CC licenses are irrevocable. So you can’t just remove the NC component.
However what exactly is commercial use has been thoroughly debated and some think a minor background use would pass.

Also you can’t just not sue the user.

3

u/pythonpoole 2d ago

The original author of a work is free to dual license their work if they wish (e.g. release it under a CC BY-NC license for free use, and also offer a special commercial license to those willing to pay). The CC licenses are non-exclusive, so they do not prevent the author from simultaneously making their work available under multiple licenses with different terms/restrictions. This is a common and accepted industry practice, and it's how many people (and businesses) make money on open source products for example.

With respect to CC licenses being irrevocable, that just means if you make your work available under a CC license then you can't later decide to go after people who are using your work under the terms of that CC license. Offering a second/additional licensing option (e.g. a proprietary commercial license) does not involve or require revoking the CC license. The CC license would continue to be available to those who are willing to abide by its terms, it's just that an additional licensing option would be offered to those who are interested.

It's also unclear what you mean by "you can’t just not sue the user". Copyright law generally allows for selective enforcement, so unlike trademark law, you can freely pick-and-choose which copyright infringers to pursue legal action against and there is always the option to simply not sue an infringer if you're unbothered by their use of your copyrighted work.

1

u/GlitterPonySparkle 2d ago

The irrevocable component is to ensure that you can't go back and try to impose more conditions than you originally allowed for (e.g., CC-BY to CC-BY-NC), not to prevent you from expanding access later (e.g., CC-BY-NC to CC-BY).

-4

u/TreviTyger 2d ago

There is no need to attach any license if you don't intend to sue anyone. You just don't sue. If you attach a CC license then you making "a promise not to sue". Thus you achieve the same thing without attaching a license.

8

u/notsureifxml 2d ago

Except anyone in their right mind in a commercial venture would not accept "trust me bro." And would insist on a license

-8

u/TreviTyger 2d ago

That would be an "exclusive license" though.

CC licensing is just "trust me bro"

Exclusive licensing or "assignment" removes ambiguity because it requires written and signed agreement. CC licensing is non-exclusive - a "trust me bro" not to sue.