Noncommercial study interim report; "user" questionnaire closes May 5!

Recently we launched the second round of a questionnaire on noncommercial use, this one focusing on users. Read that post for details, or hop directly to the questionnaire, which takes 15-25 minutes to complete. The questionnaire will be open through May 5.


We’ll be publishing preliminary data (note: free text answers will be removed for privacy) and reports from the first round after this second questionnaire is closed — as well as some thoughts from CC on noncommercial licensing that won’t be any news to anyone who has followed really closely this blog, the initiatives of our science and education programs, and our CEO Joi Ito’s speeches. Many thanks to everyone who has asked about study results so far. We’re getting information out as quickly as possible, given how busy we are, and not wanting to interfere with this round of data collection. Of course as mentioned previously a full report on the entire study will be available in July.

To whet your appetite (and hopefully encourage your participation in the current questionnaire), we’re releasing preliminary slides (.pdf) reporting on interesting data gathered in the first round that won’t influence the current round — on the profiles and activities of a random panel of U.S. content creators and those of “CC Friends & Familiy”, i.e., people who took the first questionnaire as publicized from the CC website — a self-explanatory slide from that set is to the right, as well as a list of questions asked in the first round (.ods), as some of you have requested.

Please contribute to this research — take the questionnaire on noncommercial use for users — and spread the word. You have through May 5!

Update: The questionnaire closes 6PM Pacific on May 5. That’s 01:00 GMT on May 6.

14 thoughts on “Noncommercial study interim report; "user" questionnaire closes May 5!”

  1. Hi,
    Per @joi’s request, I’m going to try to give feedback in email on the questionnaire, so that you can hopefully improve it and get better feedback from the survey (instead of prompting feedback on the survey itself like I’m doing now) 🙂 .

    One thing that would be very helpful is if you would use unique urls for each ? and page of the survey, or number the ?’s, so that we could refer back to them.


  2. Mary,

    The survey ends soon so there’s no opportunity to change it before then, but I’ll add visible naming of each question to a list of lessons learned if we ever do something like this again (if you or anyone want to give feedback on specific questions, copy the entire question — much less convenient than numbering, but workable). Thanks!

  3. Hi. I came up with a better articulation of my two concerns about cc-by after I filled out your survey, and both of them come from scary Flickr experiences.

    If a “blog with ads” is commercial exploitation of a work, as has often been charged in the Flickr forums, then I fear that every possible use is in jeopardy of being called commercial. Aren’t “blogs withOUT ads” just as commercial? Every use of a work, if it is ever displayed, either benefits or makes use of businesses’ properties or equipment. Google shareholders benefit from the goodwill offered by ad-free, “free” blogs. Perhaps the only noncommercial use then is scratching it in my skin with a stick, but maybe only if it came from a wild species growing on my own property. I don’t claim to know there is a problem with your license, but there is a problem in public perception.

    I once used someone’s creative-commons licensed photos and get an angry retort of “Why are you downloading my photos?” When I explained to the person that he gave me a license to use the work, he demured. But I think a lot of people forget that a license is a license. They instead view the CC logo as, “Hey, contact me if you want to discuss terms for using the work.” Again, this fear is increased by the terrible experience for re-mixers at Flickr, where the “Blog This!” was at first defined by the staff as it reads: folks have permission to use it. Later it got turned in to a button you can use after you’ve obtained permission.


  4. greg, i sympathize. i see *nc* as a necessary evil, i don’t know if the world is ready for open content with the ability to say things like: “use this freely, but i made it and i want exclusive rights to selling the tshirts- unless you get my permission.”

    nc lets you do that. it lets us share and remix tay zonday, music on ccmixter, comics from octopus pie and catandgirl (and more,) it even lets us share music from the commercial label magnatune.

    “what does nc mean” always confused me. from the legal code it really appears that if you aren’t “putting a door up” between someone and the media (i.e. charging for it) you’re good to go. but ianal either (@lessig is… he’s my hero.)

    i should be able to play *nc* music in my store, give people cd’s with ads on the front so long as i don’t sell the cd’s, put them on commercial websites- even websites with pay features- so long as you don’t have to pay to get the NC music!

    i don’t- but am i allowed to? i like to think the legal code permits it (and is intended to.) in such a situation i would prefer not to use NC content, but in your situation absolutely, i would. so i hope i’m interpreting “nc” correctly. as for “nd,” i *almost* think it’s evil… meh.

  5. When will the results of this study be made available?

    If no exact date is set, an estimation will be greatly appreciated.

  6. I just contacted Mike Linksvayer. Apparently the report has been delayed but will be available later this month.

Comments are closed.