Appeals Court Makes The Right Call Regarding Non-Commercial Creative Commons Licenses

from the good-to-see dept

We've pointed out for years that there's always been some level of confusion about the boundaries of the "non-commercial" tag on a Creative Commons license. There are lots of things that are kind of fuzzy about it. Does it mean you just can't sell the work? Or does it mean you can't even use it on a website if that website has ads on it? Indeed, we've worried that the non-commercial license created a bit of a branding problem for Creative Commons. However, to the organization's credit, it has spent plenty of time and effort over the past decade or so to try to clarify some of the confusion about non-commercial licensing, saying that it really just refers to the direct sale of such works.

For the past few years, that's also meant that Creative Commons, the organization, has had to step in to an ongoing lawsuit over such a license, and inform the court what a non-commercial license actually means.

The issue, in the case, was that an educational non-profit, Great Minds, sued various copy shops for making copies of its educational materials, even though they were licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. That license says the work can be copied, but only under non-commercial terms. Great Minds argued that because the copy shops, like FedEx and Office Depot, made money from the copies, that made it commercial. Creative Commons kept telling the court that this was a misreading of "non-commercial" and in the Office Depot case, the 9th Circuit has agreed.

It's a nice, quick, and simple ruling:

There is no dispute that the school and school district licensees’ copying of Great Minds’ material is permitted under the License. There also seems to be no dispute that if Office Depot were itself a licensee, commercial copying of Great Minds’ material would fall outside the scope of the License and infringe Great Minds’ copyright. The issue we consider then is whether the school and school district licensees’ exercise of their rights under the License through the services provided by Office Depot results in Office Depot becoming a licensee. We hold that it does not. A licensee’s hiring of a third-party copy service to reproduce licensed material strictly for the licensee’s own permitted use does not turn that third party into a licensee that is bound to the License terms.

Citing the ruling in the 2nd Circuit in the basically identical case that Great Minds brought against FedEx:

“Great Minds’ licensees may rely on non-employee agents in carrying out permitted uses without converting those agents into independent licensees.”

The court also notes (again, echoing the 2nd Circuit's ruling) that Great Minds' contention that Office Depot's "volitional" conduct changes matters, is "absurd":

Great Minds also contends that the “volitional” element, i.e., which entity’s employee does the copying, is determinative in this case. But that argument produces the following absurd results: (1) a teacher may copy Eureka Math on an Office Depot-owned copy machine for a fee in-store, but cannot hand the materials to an Office Depot employee to be copied; (2) a school may pay a copy machine provider a monthly fee to keep a machine on site to copy Eureka Math, but cannot pay Office Depot employees to make the same copies; and (3) a school may permit teachers to copy Eureka Math on school-owned or leased machines, but cannot pay a high school student to make the same copies.

Great Minds’ interpretation cannot be correct.

So now we have rulings in both the 2nd and the 9th Circuit saying basically the same thing. That's useful, as those are the two biggest circuits for copyright law, generally. This is, at the very least, good news. Putting an NC license on Creative Commons works does not prevent all commercial activity, so long as that activity is within the reasonable ambit of the license.

Filed Under: copyright, creative commons, non-commercial, print shops
Companies: fedex, great minds, office depot

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 7:09pm

    Re: But The Licence Is The Only Permission You Have To Make Copi

    Not true. Essentially, Office Depot is acting as an agent for the licensee. So long as Office Depot is only producing the copies for the licensee and the licensee is acting within the limitations of the license (including that the license doesn’t expressly prohibit or limit the licensee from using agents for the permitted use(s)), Office Depot cannot be committing copyright infringement.

    Think of Office Depot as a third-party contractor. As far as this license is concerned, there is no difference between hiring an employee to make the copies as permitted by the license and hiring an outside entity to do so.

    And it’s worth noting that several other cases—not just these two Great Minds cases—have made this principle expressly clear: unless expressly restricted by the original license, third-party agents hired by a licensee cannot be held liable for copyright infringement at all for actions taken for and on behalf of the licensee if they are solely done in furtherance of the licensed use and the licensee isn’t in violation of the license themselves. Basically, if the agent’s copying is only done for licensees, then the agent cannot be committing copyright infringement if the licensee is not.

    As an example, imagine that a company X has a nonexclusive license to some copyrighted software A from another company Y, producing their own software B using the licensed software. Unless otherwise stated in the license, X can hire a factory run by third-party company Z—who is not a party to any license for A—to produce copies of B on X’s behalf without Z becoming a licensee of Y’s or licensing A. As such, Z is not restricted by the license Y granted X for A. As long as X is within the bounds of the license, Z is not committing copyright infringement of A.

    (Also, while inapplicable here, there’re also “fair use”, de minimis, scenes a faire, and the first-sale doctrine as exceptions to copyright infringement. Licenses aren’t the end-all-be-all to the question of whether an act of copying a copyrighted work is copyright infringement.)

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.