While I was laying awake last night because of the heat here in the Netherlands I started thinking about something which kept me awake even a little longer.
I was thinking about the Creative Commons licenses – the Non-Commercial attribute (see creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/):
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
Although I am not a marketeer or such a smart guy like Seth Godin, I do feel this is not the perfect message we are sending to our audience, our fans.
“You may not use this work for commercial purposes.” I think a lot of people are thinking that the work is not meant for commercial use which is not true. So aren’t we simply sending the wrong message to our fans then? Shouldn’t we simply have a statement in a license which states something like ‘This work can be re-licensed for commercial use but for non-commercial use you are free to use, copy and share this work.’ Sure, my English is not perfect, but I think you’ll understand the message here.
So instead of saying (sort of) “no, we’re not interested to make a buck with it” we should really focus on making a buck with the work, and to promote the work as a potential commercial work. Any artist wants to make a buck or 2 or more with their work, or am I wrong?
So it’s all about the message we’re sending to the public. It’s also about the icon. Instead of using the CC dollar stop-sign, wouldn’t a dollar-sign not be better? This is what we want; we want to make a buck or 2, right?
Sure, I don’t think we need a total rewrite of these licenses but yes, I feel that someone like Seth Godin could probably reverse the whole perception of this Non-Commercial attribute. And let’s face it: it should not be a Non-Commercial attribute but a Commercial attribute because we want to make some money with that work and that’s the only reason for using the attribute NC after all!
Mmm… anyone? Seth Godin, Cory Doctorrow maybe?