SUPPORT THE WORK

GetWiki

Creative Commons license

ARTICLE SUBJECTS
aesthetics  →
being  →
complexity  →
database  →
enterprise  →
ethics  →
fiction  →
history  →
internet  →
knowledge  →
language  →
licensing  →
linux  →
logic  →
method  →
news  →
perception  →
philosophy  →
policy  →
purpose  →
religion  →
science  →
sociology  →
software  →
truth  →
unix  →
wiki  →
ARTICLE TYPES
essay  →
feed  →
help  →
system  →
wiki  →
ARTICLE ORIGINS
critical  →
discussion  →
forked  →
imported  →
original  →
Creative Commons license
[ temporary import ]
please note:
- the content below is remote from Wikipedia
- it has been imported raw for GetWiki
{{About|the Creative Commons licenses|the organization that produced them|Creative Commons}}{{selfref|{{Hatnote|Particular Creative Commons license names redirect here, such as CC BY-SA which is used by Wikipedia itself and FANDOM (Wikia). See Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.}}|}}{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2015}}(File:Cc.logo.circle.svg|thumb|250px|Creative Commons logo)(File:Creative Commons and Commerce.ogg|thumb|thumbtime=18|This video explains how Creative Commons licenses can be used in conjunction with commercial licensing arrangements)A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work".A "work" is any creative material made by a person. A painting, a graphic, a book, a song/ the lyrics to a song, or a photograph of almost anything are all examples of "works". A CC license is used when an author wants to give other people the right to share, use, and build upon a work that they (the author) have created. CC provides an author flexibility (for example, they might choose to allow only non-commercial uses of a given work) and protects the people who use or redistribute an author's work from concerns of copyright infringement as long as they abide by the conditions that are specified in the license by which the author distributes the work.WEB,weblink The teacher's guide to Creative Commons licenses, Shergill, Sanjeet, 2017-05-06, Open Education Europa, 2018-03-15, WEB,weblink What are Creative Commons licenses?, Wageningen University & Research, 2018-03-15, WEB,weblink Creative Commons licenses, University of Michigan Library, 2018-03-15, WEB,weblink Creative Commons licenses, University of Glasgow, 2018-03-15, WEB,weblink The Creative Commons licenses, UNESCO, 2018-03-15, There are several types of Creative Commons licenses. The licenses differ by several combinations that condition the terms of distribution. They were initially released on December 16, 2002 by Creative Commons, a U.S. non-profit corporation founded in 2001. There have also been five versions of the suite of licenses, numbered 1.0 through 4.0.WEB,weblink License Versions - Creative Commons, wiki.creativecommons.org, July 4, 2017, no,weblink June 30, 2017, mdy-all, {{As of|2018|December}}, the 4.0 license suite is the most current.In October 2014 the Open Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative Commons CC BY, CC BY-SA and CC0 licenses as conformant with the "Open Definition" for content and data.Open Definition 2.1 {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170127074917weblink |date=January 27, 2017 }} on opendefinition.orglicenses on opendefinition.comCreative Commons 4.0 BY and BY-SA licenses approved conformant with the Open Definition by Timothy Vollmer on creativecommons.org (December 27th, 2013)

Applicable works

(File:Wanna Work Together? with subtitles - Creative Commons.ogv|thumb|thumbtime=97|Wanna Work Together? animation by Creative Commons)(File:Mayer and Bettle 2 - Creative Commons.ogv|thumb|thumbtime=98|The second version of the Mayer and Bettle promotional animation explains what Creative Commons is)Work licensed under a Creative Commons license is governed by applicable copyright law.WEB,weblink Creative Commons Legal Code, January 9, 2008, Creative Commons, February 22, 2010, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20100211175916weblink">weblink February 11, 2010, mdy-all, This allows Creative Commons licenses to be applied to all work falling under copyright, including: books, plays, movies, music, articles, photographs, blogs, and websites.While Software is also governed by copyright law and CC licenses are applicable, the Creative Commons recommends Free and open-source software software licenses instead of Creative Commons licenses.WEB,weblink Creative Commons FAQ: Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?, Wiki.creativecommons.org, July 29, 2013, September 20, 2013, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20101127205528weblink">weblink November 27, 2010, mdy-all, Outside the FOSS licensing use case for software there are (:Category:Creative Commons-licensed video games|several usage examples) to utilize CC licenses to specify a "Freeware" license model; examples are The White Chamber, Mari0 or Assault Cube.WEB,weblink AssaultCube - License, 2011-01-30, assault.cubers.net,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20101225031357weblink">weblink 25 December 2010, no, AssaultCube is FREEWARE. [...] The content, code and images of the AssaultCube website and all documentation are licensed under "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported, Also the Free Software Foundation recommends the CC0 as the preferred method of releasing software into the public domain.There are over 35,000 works that are available in hardcopy and have a registered ISBN number. Creative Commons splits these works into two categories, one of which encompasses self-published books.WEB,weblink Books - Creative Commons, wiki.creativecommons.org, 2016-04-01, no,weblink April 12, 2016, mdy-all, However, application of a Creative Commons license may not modify the rights allowed by fair use or fair dealing or exert restrictions which violate copyright exceptions.WEB, Do Creative Commons licenses affect exceptions and limitations to copyright, such as fair dealing and fair use?,weblink Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons, July 26, 2015, no,weblink August 8, 2015, mdy-all, Furthermore, Creative Commons licenses are non-exclusive and non-revocable.WEB, What if I change my mind about using a CC license?,weblink Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons, July 26, 2015, no,weblink August 8, 2015, mdy-all, Any work or copies of the work obtained under a Creative Commons license may continue to be used under that license.WEB, What happens if the author decides to revoke the CC license to material I am using?,weblink Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons, July 26, 2015, no,weblink August 8, 2015, mdy-all, In the case of works protected by multiple Creative Commons licenses, the user may choose either.WEB, How do CC licenses operate?,weblink Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons, July 26, 2015, no,weblink August 8, 2015, mdy-all,

Types of licenses

File:Creative commons license spectrum.svg|thumb|300px|Creative commons license spectrum between public domain (top) and all rights reserved (bottom). Left side indicates the use-cases allowed, right side the license components. The dark green area indicates Free Cultural Works compatible licenses, the two green areas compatibility with the Remix cultureRemix culture(File:Free-cultural-license-cc.svg|thumb|300px|CC license usage in 2014 (top and middle), "Free cultural works" compatible license usage 2010 to 2014 (bottom))The CC licenses all grant the "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide for non-commercial purposes, and without modification.WEB,weblink Baseline Rights, Creative Commons, June 12, 2008, February 22, 2010, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20100208081209weblink">weblink February 8, 2010, mdy-all, The details of each of these licenses depend on the version, and comprises a selection out of four conditions:
{| class="wikitable"! Icon !! Right || Description
75px|Attribution)Attribution (copyright)>Attribution (BY)attribution (copyright)>attribution) in the manner specified by these.
75px|Share-alike)| Share-alike (SA)| Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical ("not more restrictive") to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.) Without share-alike, derivative works might be sublicensed with compatible but more restrictive license clauses, e.g. CC BY to CC BY-NC.)
75px|Non-commercial)| Non-commercial (NC)| Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works and remixes based on it only for non-commercial purposes.
75px|Non-derivative)| No Derivative Works (ND)derivative works and Remix culture>remixes based on it.
WEB, What are Creative Commons licenses?,weblink Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons, July 26, 2015, no,weblink August 8, 2015, mdy-all,
The last two clauses are not free content licenses, according to definitions such as DFSG or the Free Software Foundation's standards, and cannot be used in contexts that require these freedoms, such as Pseudopedia. For software, Creative Commons includes three free licenses created by other institutions: the BSD License, the GNU LGPL, and the GNU GPL.WEB,weblinkweblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20090622222019weblink">weblink June 22, 2009, Creative Commons GNU LGPL, July 20, 2009, Mixing and matching these conditions produces sixteen possible combinations, of which eleven are valid Creative Commons licenses and five are not. Of the five invalid combinations, four include both the "nd" and "sa" clauses, which are mutually exclusive; and one includes none of the clauses. Of the eleven valid combinations, the five that lack the "by" clause have been retired because 98% of licensors requested attribution, though they do remain available for reference on the website.WEB,weblink Retired Legal Tools, May 31, 2012, Creative Commons, no,weblink May 3, 2016, mdy, WEB,weblink Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses, Creativecommons.org, May 25, 2004, September 20, 2013, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20130921060401weblink">weblink September 21, 2013, mdy-all, WEB,weblink About The Licenses - Creative Commons, Creative Commons, July 26, 2015, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20150726003931weblink">weblink July 26, 2015, mdy-all, This leaves six regularly used licenses + the CC0 public domain waiver:

Seven regularly used licenses

{{anchor|Six regularly used licenses}}{| class="wikitable sortable"! Icon !! Description !! Shortening !!Attribution Required||Allows Remix culture!!Allows commercial use!!Allows Free Cultural Works!!Meets the OKI 'Open Definition'
alt=CC0 iconNo}} {{Yes}} {{Yes}} {{Yes}} {{Yes}}
alt=CC-BY iconYes}}{{Yes}} {{Yes}} {{Yes}} {{Yes}}
alt=CC-BY-SA iconYes}}{{yes}}{{Yes}} {{Yes}} {{Yes}}
alt=CC-by-NC iconYes}}{{Yes}} {{No}} {{No}}{{No}}
alt=CC-BY-NC-SA iconYes}}{{Yes}} {{No}} {{No}}{{No}}
alt=CC-BY-ND iconYes}}{{No}} {{Yes}} {{No}}{{No}}
alt=CC-BY-NC-ND iconYes}}{{No}} {{No}} {{No}}{{No}}
For example, the Creative Commons Attribution (BY) license allows one to share and remix (create derivative works), even for commercial use, so long as attribution is given.WEB,weblink Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 United States, November 16, 2009, Creative Commons, February 22, 2010, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20100224022605weblink">weblink February 24, 2010, mdy-all,

{{anchor|Version 4.0}}Version 4.0 and international use

The original non-localized Creative Commons licenses were written with the U.S. legal system in mind, therefore the wording may be incompatible with local legislation in other jurisdictions, rendering the licenses unenforceable there. To address this issue, Creative Commons asked its affiliates to translate the various licenses to reflect local laws in a process called "porting."BOOK, Murray, Laura, Putting intellectual property in its place: rights discourses, creative labor, and the everyday, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014, 0-19-933626-1, 25, As of July 2011, Creative Commons licenses have been ported to over 50 jurisdictions worldwide.WEB,weblink Worldwide, Creative Commons, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20081015194903weblink">weblink October 15, 2008, mdy-all, The latest version 4.0 of the Creative Commons licenses, released on November 25, 2013, are generic licenses that are applicable to most jurisdictions and do not usually require ports.WEB, Peters, Diane, CC's Next Generation Licenses — Welcome Version 4.0!,weblink Creative Commons, November 26, 2013, November 25, 2013, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20131126124736weblink">weblink November 26, 2013, mdy-all, WEB, What's new in 4.0?,weblink Creative Commons, November 26, 2013, 2013, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20131129150056weblink">weblink November 29, 2013, mdy-all, WEB, CC 4.0, an end to porting Creative Commons licences?,weblink TechnoLlama, August 11, 2013, September 25, 2011, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20130902134000weblink">weblink September 2, 2013, mdy-all, WEB, Music Manumit Lawcast with Jessica Coates of Creative Commons,weblink YouTube, August 11, 2013, Doug Whitfield, August 5, 2013, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20130814215835weblink">weblink August 14, 2013, mdy-all, No new ports have been implemented in version 4.0 of the license.WEB,weblink CC Affiliate Network, Creative Commons, July 8, 2011, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20110709065022weblink">weblink July 9, 2011, mdy-all, Version 4.0 discourages using ported versions and instead acts as a single global license.WEB, Frequently Asked Questions: What if CC licenses have not been ported to my jurisdiction?,weblink Creative Commons, November 26, 2013, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20131127113420weblink">weblink November 27, 2013, mdy-all,

Rights

Attribution

Since 2004, all current licenses other than the CC0 variant require attribution of the original author, as signified by the BY component (as in the preposition "by"). The attribution must be given to "the best of [one's] ability using the information available".WEB,weblink Frequently Frequently Asked Questions, February 2, 2010, Creative Commons, February 22, 2010, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20100226070130weblink">weblink February 26, 2010, mdy-all, Generally this implies the following:
  • Include any copyright notices (if applicable). If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, those notices must be left intact, or reproduced in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which the work is being re-published.
  • Cite the author's name, screen name, or user ID, etc. If the work is being published on the Internet, it is nice to link that name to the person's profile page, if such a page exists.
  • Cite the work's title or name (if applicable), if such a thing exists. If the work is being published on the Internet, it is nice to link the name or title directly to the original work.
  • Cite the specific CC license the work is under. If the work is being published on the Internet, it is nice if the license citation links to the license on the CC website.
  • Mention if the work is a derivative work or adaptation. In addition to the above, one needs to identify that their work is a derivative work, e.g., "This is a Finnish translation of [original work] by [author]." or "Screenplay based on [original work] by [author]."

Non-commercial licenses

{{further|Creative Commons#Criticism of the non-commercial license}}The "non-commercial" option included in some Creative Commons licenses is controversial in definition,WEB,weblink Defining Noncommercial report published, Creativecommons.org, September 20, 2013, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20130921060638weblink">weblink September 21, 2013, mdy-all, as it is sometimes unclear what can be considered a non-commercial setting, and application, since its restrictions differ from the principles of open content promoted by other permissive licenses.WEB,weblink The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License, Freedomdefined.org, August 26, 2013, September 20, 2013, no,weblink June 25, 2012, mdy-all, In 2014 Wikimedia Deutschland published a guide to using Creative Commons licenses as m:Open Content - A Practical Guide to Using Creative Commons Licences|wiki pages]] for translations and as PDF.BOOK,weblink Open Content – A Practical Guide to Using Creative Commons Licenses, 978-3-940785-57-2, Till Kreutzer, 2014, List of Wikimedia chapters, Wikimedia Deutschland e.a., March 23, 2015, no,weblink April 4, 2015, mdy-all,

{{anchor|CC0}}Zero / public domain

{{Redirect-confused|CC0|CCO (disambiguation)}}File:Cc-zero.svg|thumb|150px|CC zero (waiver]]/license logo.WEB,weblink Downloads, Creative Commons, 2015-12-16, 2015-12-24, no,weblink December 25, 2015, mdy-all, )File:Cc-public_domain_mark_white.svg|thumb|150px|Creative Commons Public Domain MarkPublic Domain MarkBesides licenses, Creative Commons also offers through CC0 a way to release material worldwide into the public domain.WEB,weblink CC0, Creative Commons, February 22, 2010, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20100226071411weblink">weblink February 26, 2010, mdy-all, CC0 is a legal tool for waiving as many rights as legally possible.WEB,weblink Validity of the Creative Commons Zero 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication and its usability for bibliographic metadata from the perspective of German Copyright Law, Dr. Till Kreutzer, July 4, 2017, Or, when not legally possible, CC0 acts as fallback as public domain equivalent license. Development of CC0 began in 2007PRESS RELEASE,weblink Creative Commons Launches CC0 and CC+ Programs, December 17, 2007, Creative Commons, February 22, 2010, yes,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20100223053554weblink">weblink February 23, 2010, mdy-all, and was released in 2009.WEB,weblink Report from CC board meeting, Gavin, Baker, Open Access News, January 16, 2009, February 22, 2010, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20100919010433weblink">weblink September 19, 2010, mdy-all, WEB,weblink Expanding the Public Domain: Part Zero, Creativecommons.org, September 20, 2013, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20130921060406weblink">weblink September 21, 2013, mdy-all, A major target of the license was the scientific data community.WEB,weblink CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process,weblink 2015-09-06, Christopher Allan Webber, In the Open Source Initiative Licence review mailing list, February 24, 2012, In 2010, Creative Commons announced its Public Domain Mark,WEB,weblink Marking and Tagging the Public Domain: An Invitation to Comment, Creativecommons.org, August 10, 2010, September 20, 2013, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20130921060643weblink">weblink September 21, 2013, mdy-all, a tool for labeling works already in the public domain. Together, CC0 and the Public Domain Mark replace the Public Domain Dedication and Certification,WEB,weblink Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain Certification, August 20, 2009, Creative Commons, February 22, 2010, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20100223035835weblink">weblink February 23, 2010, mdy-all, which took a U.S.-centric approach and co-mingled distinct operations.In 2011, the Free Software Foundation added CC0 to its free software licenses,WEB,weblink Using CC0 for public domain software, April 15, 2011, Creative Commons, May 10, 2011, no,weblink May 14, 2011, mdy-all, and currently recommends CC0 as the preferred method of releasing software into the public domain.WEB,weblink Various Licenses and Comments about Them, GNU Project, April 4, 2015, no,weblink July 24, 2010, mdy-all, In February 2012 CC0 was submitted to Open Source Initiative (OSI) for their approval.WEB
,weblink
, OSI recognition for Creative Commons Zero License?
, Carl Boettiger
, In the Open Source Initiative Licence review mailing list
, opensource.org
, February 1, 2012
, no
,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20130926193810weblink">weblink
, September 26, 2013
, mdy-all
, However, controversy arose over its clause which excluded from the scope of the license any relevant patents held by the copyright holder. This clause was added with scientific data in mind rather than software, but some members of the OSI believed it could weaken users' defenses against software patents. As a result, Creative Commons withdrew their submission, and the license is not currently approved by the OSI.WEB
,weblink
, What about the Creative Commons "CC0" ("CC Zero") public domain dedication? Is that Open Source?
, The Open Source Initiative FAQ
, May 25, 2013
, opensource.org
, no
,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20130519153636weblink">weblink
, May 19, 2013
, mdy-all
, In 2013, Unsplash began using the CC0 license to distribute free stock photography.WEB, Unsplash is a site full of free images for your next splash page,weblink The Next Web, 2015-11-13, en-US, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20151117024732weblink">weblink November 17, 2015, mdy-all, WEB, License {{!, Unsplash|url =weblink|website = unsplash.com|accessdate = 2015-11-13|deadurl = no|archiveurl =weblink|archivedate = November 17, 2015|df = mdy-all}} It now distributes several million photos a monthWEB, Why Building Something Useful For Others Is The Best Marketing There Is,weblink Fast Company, 2015-11-13, en-US, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20151114225726weblink">weblink November 14, 2015, mdy-all, and has inspired a host of similar sites, including CC0 photography companies and CC0 blogging companies.WEB, Blogstock is building the Shutterstock or Unsplash of written content - Startup Daily,weblink Startup Daily, 2015-11-13, en-US, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20151112091957weblink">weblink November 12, 2015, mdy-all, Lawrence Lessig, the founder of Creative Commons, has contributed to the site.WEB, Lawrence Lessig {{!, Unsplash Book|url =weblink|website = book.unsplash.com|accessdate = 2015-11-13|deadurl = yes|archiveurl =weblink|archivedate = November 17, 2015|df = mdy-all}} Unsplash moved from using the CC0 licence to their own similar licence in June 2017, but with a restriction added on using the photos to make a competing service which makes it incompatible with the CC0 licence.WEB,weblink Community update: Unsplash branded license and ToS changes, 2018-01-07, no,weblink January 7, 2018, mdy-all, In October 2014 the Open Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative Commons CC0 as conformant with the "Open Definition" and recommend the license to dedicate content to the public domain.

Adaptation

(File:Derivative of medical imaging.jpg|thumb|240px|An example of a permitted combination of two works, one being CC BY-SA and the other being Public Domain.)Rights in an adaptation can be expressed by a CC license that is compatible with the status or licensing of the original work or works on which the adaptation is based.WEB, Frequently Asked Questions,weblink CC Wiki, March 25, 2014, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20140325054613weblink">weblink March 25, 2014, mdy-all, {| class="wikitable"License compatibility chart for combining or mixing two CC licensed worksHTTPS://CREATIVECOMMONS.ORG/FAQ/#CAN-I-COMBINE-MATERIAL-UNDER-DIFFERENT-CREATIVE-COMMONS-LICENSES-IN-MY-WORK, Frequently Asked Questions, 2016-07-14, 2016-08-01, Creative Commons, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20101127205528weblink">weblink November 27, 2010, mdy-all, Creative Commons licenses without a non-commercial or no-derivatives requirement, including public domain/CC0, are all cross-compatible. Non-commercial licenses are compatible with each other and with less restrictive licenses, except for Attribution-ShareAlike. No-derivatives licenses are not compatible with any license, including themselves. style="height: 90px;"!! (File:Public Domain Mark button.svg|alt=Public Domain mark icon|88px)(File:CC0 button.svg|alt=CC0 icon|88px)! (File:CC-BY icon.svg|alt=CC-BY icon|88px)! (File:CC-BY-SA icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-SA icon|88px)! (File:Cc-by-nc icon.svg|alt=CC-by-NC icon|88px)(File:Cc-by-nc-sa icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-NC-SA icon|88px)! (File:Cc-by-nc-nd icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-NC-ND icon|88px)(File:Cc-by-nd icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-ND icon|88px)
style="height: 90px;"! (File:Public Domain Mark button.svg|alt=Public Domain mark icon|88px)(File:CC0 button.svg|alt=CC0 icon|100px)
| {{na}}
style="height: 90px;"! (File:CC-BY icon.svg|alt=CC-BY icon|100px)
| {{na}}
style="height: 90px;"! (File:CC-BY-SA icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-SA icon|100px)
| {{na}}
style="height: 90px;"! (File:Cc-by-nc icon.svg|alt=CC-by-NC icon|88px)(File:Cc-by-nc-sa icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-NC-SA icon|100px)
| {{na}}
style="height: 90px;"! (File:Cc-by-nc-nd icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-NC-ND icon|88px)(File:Cc-by-nd icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-ND icon|100px)
| {{na}}

Legal aspects

The legal implications of large numbers of works having Creative Commons licensing are difficult to predict, and there is speculation that media creators often lack insight to be able to choose the license which best meets their intent in applying it.JOURNAL, Katz, Zachary, Pitfalls of Open Licensing: An Analysis of Creative Commons Licensing, (IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review), 2005, 46, 3, 391, Some works licensed using Creative Commons licenses have been involved in several court cases.WEB,weblink Creative Commons Case Law, August 31, 2011, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20110901220753weblink">weblink September 1, 2011, mdy-all, Creative Commons itself was not a party to any of these cases; they only involved licensors or licensees of Creative Commons licenses. When the cases went as far as decisions by judges (that is, they were not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or were not settled privately out of court), they have all validated the legal robustness of Creative Commons public licenses. Here are some notable cases:

Dutch tabloid

In early 2006, podcaster Adam Curry sued a Dutch tabloid who published photos from Curry's Flickr page without Curry's permission. The photos were licensed under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license. While the verdict was in favor of Curry, the tabloid avoided having to pay restitution to him as long as they did not repeat the offense. Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, main creator of the Dutch CC license and director of the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam, commented, "The Dutch Court's decision is especially noteworthy because it confirms that the conditions of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed under it, and binds users of such content even without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of the license."WEB,weblink Creative Commons license upheld by court, News.cnet.com, December 24, 2012, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20121025165735weblink">weblink October 25, 2012, mdy-all, BOOK,weblink Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My Ipod - Matthew Rimmer - Google Böcker, Books.google.se, December 24, 2012, no,weblink April 14, 2016, mdy-all, WEB,weblink Creative Commons License Upheld by Dutch Court, Groklaw, March 16, 2006, September 2, 2006, WEB,weblink Creative Commons Licenses Enforced in Dutch Court, August 31, 2011, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20110906074741weblink">weblink September 6, 2011, mdy-all,

Virgin Mobile

In 2007, Virgin Mobile Australia launched an advertising campaign promoting their cellphone text messaging service using the work of amateur photographers who uploaded their work to Flickr using a Creative Commons-BY (Attribution) license. Users licensing their images this way freed their work for use by any other entity, as long as the original creator was attributed credit, without any other compensation required. Virgin upheld this single restriction by printing a URL leading to the photographer's Flickr page on each of their ads. However, one picture, depicting 15-year-old Alison Chang at a fund-raising carwash for her church,NEWS, Noam, Cohen, Use My Photo? Not Without Permission.,weblink One moment, Alison Chang, a 15-year-old student from Dallas, is cheerfully goofing around at a local church-sponsored car wash, posing with a friend for a photo. Weeks later, that photo is posted online and catches the eye of an ad agency in Australia, and the altered image of Alison appears on a billboard in Adelaide as part of a Virgin Mobile advertising campaign., New York Times, September 25, 2007, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20110615133400weblink">weblink June 15, 2011, mdy-all, caused some controversy when she sued Virgin Mobile. The photo was taken by Alison's church youth counselor, Justin Ho-Wee Wong, who uploaded the image to Flickr under the Creative Commons license. In 2008, the case (concerning personality rights rather than copyright as such) was thrown out of a Texas court for lack of jurisdiction.WEB,weblinkweblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20110713050011weblink">weblink July 13, 2011, No personal jurisdiction over Australian defendant in Flickr right of publicity case, Evan Brown, January 22, 2009, Internet Cases, a blog about law and technology, September 25, 2010, WEB,weblink Lawsuit Against Virgin Mobile and Creative Commons – FAQ, August 31, 2011, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20110907054202weblink">weblink September 7, 2011, mdy-all,

SGAE vs Fernández

In the fall of 2006, the collecting society Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) in Spain sued Ricardo Andrés Utrera Fernández, owner of a disco bar located in Badajoz who played CC-licensed music. SGAE argued that Fernández should pay royalties for public performance of the music between November 2002 and August 2005. The Lower Court rejected the collecting society's claims because the owner of the bar proved that the music he was using was not managed by the society.WEB,weblink Spanish Court Recognizes CC-Music, Mia Garlick, March 23, 2006, Creative Commons, September 25, 2010, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20100809082620weblink">weblink August 9, 2010, mdy-all, In February 2006, the Cultural Association Ladinamo (based in Madrid, and represented by Javier de la Cueva) was granted the use of copyleft music in their public activities. The sentence said: "Admitting the existence of music equipment, a joint evaluation of the evidence practiced, this court is convinced that the defendant prevents communication of works whose management is entrusted to the plaintiff [SGAE], using a repertoire of authors who have not assigned the exploitation of their rights to the SGAE, having at its disposal a database for that purpose and so it is manifested both by the legal representative of the Association and by Manuela Villa Acosta, in charge of the cultural programming of the association, which is compatible with the alternative character of the Association and its integration in the movement called 'copy left'".WEB,weblink Sentencia nº 12/2006 Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 5 de Madrid | Derecho de Internet, es, Derecho-internet.org, 2015-12-24, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20151126165923weblink">weblink November 26, 2015, mdy-all,

GateHouse Media, Inc. v. That's Great News, LLC

On June 30, 2010 GateHouse Media filed a lawsuit against That's Great News. GateHouse Media owns a number of local newspapers, including Rockford Register Star, which is based in Rockford, Illinois. That's Great News makes plaques out of newspaper articles and sells them to the people featured in the articles.WEB,weblink New Copyright Lawsuit Involves Creative Commons, Evan Brown, July 2, 2010, Internet Cases: A blog about law and technology, April 20, 2012, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20120621215029weblink">weblink June 21, 2012, mdy-all, GateHouse sued That's Great News for copyright infringement and breach of contract. GateHouse claimed that TGN violated the non-commercial and no-derivative works restrictions on GateHouse Creative Commons licensed work when TGN published the material on its website. The case was settled on August 17, 2010, though the settlement was not made public.WEB,weblink GateHouse Media v. That's Great News, CMLP Staff, August 5, 2010, Citizen Media Law Project, April 20, 2012, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20120502165158weblink">weblink May 2, 2012, mdy-all,

Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC

The plaintiff was photographer Art Drauglis, who uploaded several pictures to the photo-sharing website Flickr using Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License (CC BY-SA), including one entitled "Swain's Lock, Montgomery Co., MD.". The defendant was Kappa Map Group, a map-making company, which downloaded the image and used it in a compilation entitled "Montgomery Co. Maryland Street Atlas". Though there was nothing on the cover that indicated the origin of the picture, the text "Photo: Swain's Lock, Montgomery Co., MD Photographer: Carly Lesser & Art Drauglis, Creative Commoms {{sic}}, CC-BY-SA-2.0" appeared at the bottom of the back cover.The validity of the CC BY-SA 2.0 as a license was not in dispute. The CC BY-SA 2.0 requires that the licensee to use nothing less restrictive than the CC BY-SA 2.0 terms. The atlas was sold commercially and not for free reuse by others. The dispute was whether Drauglis' license terms that would apply to "derivative works" applied to the entire atlas. Drauglis sued the defendants in June 2014 for copyright infringement and license breach, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, fees, and costs. Drauglis asserted, among other things, that Kappa Map Group "exceeded the scope of the License because defendant did not publish the Atlas under a license with the same or similar terms as those under which the Photograph was originally licensed."WEB,weblink Memorandum Opinion, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, August 18, 2015, August 29, 2016, no,weblink September 21, 2016, mdy-all, The judge dismissed the case on that count, ruling that the atlas was not a derivative work of the photograph in the sense of the license, but rather a collective work. Since the atlas was not a derivative work of the photograph, Kappa Map Group did not need to license the entire atlas under the CC BY-SA 2.0 license. The judge also determined that the work had been properly attributed.WEB, Guadamuz, Andres, US Court interprets copyleft clause in Creative Commons licenses,weblink TechnoLlama, 10 December 2015, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20151222123232weblink">weblink December 22, 2015, mdy-all, In particular, the judge determined that it was sufficient to credit the author of the photo as prominently as authors of similar authorship (such as the authors of individual maps contained in the book) and that the name "CC-BY-SA-2.0" is sufficiently precise to locate the correct license on the internet and can be considered a valid URI of the license.WEB, 2017-10-02, Carrollogos: U.S. Court Correctly Interprets Creative Commons Licenses,weblink Michael W. Carroll, no,weblink October 2, 2017, mdy-all,

Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VGSE)

This incident has not been tested in court, but it highlights a potentially disturbing practice. In July 2016, German computer magazine LinuxUser reports that a German blogger Christoph Langner used two {{nowrap|CC-BY}} licensed photographs from Berlin photographer Dennis Skley on his private blog Linuxundich.de. Langner duly mentioned the author and the license and added a link to the original. Langner was later contacted by the Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VGSE) (Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Internet) with a demand for €2300 for failing to provide the full name of the work, the full name of the author, the license text, and a source link, as is apparently required by the fine print in the license. Of this sum, €40 goes to the photographer, and the remainder is retained by VGSE.JOURNAL
, Jörg
, Luther
, Kleingedrucktes — Editorial
, Fine print — Editorial
, German
, July 2016
, LinuxUser
, 07/2016
, 1615-4444
,weblink
, 2016-09-09
, no
,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20160915150620weblink">weblink
, September 15, 2016
, mdy-all
, See also: WEB
, Abmahnung des Verbandes zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VSGE)
, Notice from the Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Internet (VSGE)
, German
, 8 January 2014
, Feil Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft
, Hannover, Germany
,weblink
, 2016-09-09
, no
,weblink
, September 14, 2016
, mdy-all
,

Works with a Creative Commons license

(File:Staeofthecommons2017-o.svg|thumb|220px|Number of Creative Commons licensed works as of 2017, per State of the Commons report){{see also|Category:Creative Commons-licensed works}}Creative Commons maintains a content directory wiki of organizations and projects using Creative Commons licenses.WEB,weblink Content Directories, creativecommons.org, April 24, 2009, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20090430010815weblink">weblink April 30, 2009, mdy-all, On its website CC also provides case studies of projects using CC licenses across the world.WEB,weblink Case Studies, Creative Commons, December 20, 2011, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20111224111652weblink">weblink December 24, 2011, mdy-all, CC licensed content can also be accessed through a number of content directories and search engines (see CC licensed content directories).

Retired licenses

Due to either disuse or criticism, a number of previously offered Creative Commons licenses have since been retired,WEB,weblink Retiring standalone DevNations and one Sampling license, July 5, 2007, Creative Commons, June 4, 2007, Lawrence, Lessig, Lawrence Lessig, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20070707023305weblink">weblink July 7, 2007, mdy-all, and are no longer recommended for new works. The retired licenses include all licenses lacking the Attribution element other than CC0, as well as the following four licenses:
  • Developing Nations License: a license which only applies to developing countries deemed to be "non-high-income economies" by the World Bank. Full copyright restrictions apply to people in other countries.WEB,weblink Developing Nations License, Creative Commons, April 9, 2012, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20120412101407weblink">weblink April 12, 2012, mdy-all,
  • Sampling: parts of the work can be used for any purpose other than advertising, but the whole work cannot be copied or modifiedWEB,weblink Sampling 1.0, Creative Commons, April 9, 2012, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20120316011404weblink">weblink March 16, 2012, mdy-all,
  • Sampling Plus: parts of the work can be copied and modified for any purpose other than advertising, and the entire work can be copied for noncommercial purposesWEB,weblink Sampling Plus 1.0, November 13, 2009, Creative Commons, April 9, 2012, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20120411100732weblink">weblink April 11, 2012, mdy-all,
  • NonCommercial Sampling Plus: the whole work or parts of the work can be copied and modified for non-commercial purposesWEB,weblink NonCommercial Sampling Plus 1.0, November 13, 2009, Creative Commons, April 9, 2012, no,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20120325110847weblink">weblink March 25, 2012, mdy-all,

See also

Notes

{{reflist|group=note}}

References

{{Reflist|30em}}

External links

{{Creative Commons topic}}{{FOSS}}{{Open navbox}}{{Subject bar|commons=yes|commons-search=Category:Creative Commons|s=yes|s-search=Category:Creative Commons|wikt=yes|v=yes|q=yes|d=yes|d-search=Q43449}}

- content above as imported from Wikipedia
- "Creative Commons license" does not exist on GetWiki (yet)
- time: 10:18pm EDT - Wed, Jun 26 2019
[ this remote article is provided by Wikipedia ]
LATEST EDITS [ see all ]
GETWIKI 09 MAY 2016
GETWIKI 18 OCT 2015
M.R.M. Parrott
Biographies
GETWIKI 20 AUG 2014
GETWIKI 19 AUG 2014
GETWIKI 18 AUG 2014
Wikinfo
Culture
CONNECT