Creative Commons license: Difference between revisions

{{Short description|Copyright license for free use of a work}} it is go8o8d and ok to use

A '''Creative Commons''' ('''CC''') '''license''' is one of several [[public copyright license]]s that enable the free distribution of an otherwise [[copyright]]ed "work".{{efn|A "work" is any creative material made by a person. A painting, a graphic, a book, a song and its lyrics, 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 the author has 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shergill |first=Sanjeet |date=2017-05-06 |title=The teacher's guide to Creative Commons licenses |url=https://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/blogs/teachers-guide-creative-commons-licenses |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180626111219/https://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/blogs/teachers-guide-creative-commons-licenses |archive-date=June 26, 2018 |access-date=2018-03-15 |website=Open Education Europa}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=June 16, 2015 |title=What are Creative Commons licenses? |url=https://www.wur.nl/en/article/What-are-Creative-Commons-licenses.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180315133811/https://www.wur.nl/en/article/What-are-Creative-Commons-licenses.htm |archive-date=March 15, 2018 |access-date=2018-03-15 |website=Wageningen University & Research}}</ref><ref name="University of Michigan Library">{{Cite web |title=Creative Commons licenses |url=http://guides.lib.umich.edu/creativecommons/licenses |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181121140426/http://guides.lib.umich.edu/creativecommons/licenses |archive-date=November 21, 2018 |access-date=2018-03-15 |website=University of Michigan Library}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Creative Commons licenses |url=https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_464806_en.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180315133739/https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_464806_en.pdf |archive-date=March 15, 2018 |access-date=2018-03-15 |website=University of Glasgow}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=The Creative Commons licenses |url=https://en.unesco.org/open-access/creative-commons-licenses |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180315134320/https://en.unesco.org/open-access/creative-commons-licenses |archive-date=March 15, 2018 |access-date=2018-03-15 |website=UNESCO}}</ref>

There are several types of Creative Commons licenses. Each license differs 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 organization|non-profit]] corporation founded in 2001. There have also been five versions of the suite of licenses, numbered 1.0 through 4.0.<ref>{{Cite web |title=License Versions |url=https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170630063933/https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions |archive-date=June 30, 2017 |access-date=July 4, 2017 |website=Creative Commons Wiki |df=mdy-all}}</ref> Released in November 2013, the 4.0 license suite is the most current. While the Creative Commons license was originally grounded in the American legal system, there are now several [[Creative Commons jurisdiction ports]] which accommodate international laws.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Creative Commons {{!}} University of Minnesota Libraries |url=https://www.lib.umn.edu/services/copyright/creative-commons |access-date=2024-10-09 |website=www.lib.umn.edu |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2016-09-07 |title=What Is a Creative Commons License? |url=https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-is-creative-commons-license/ |access-date=2024-10-09 |website=Copyright Alliance |language=en-US |archive-date=September 30, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240930152512/https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-is-creative-commons-license/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

In October 2014, the [[Open Knowledge Foundation]] approved the Creative Commons CC&nbsp;BY, CC&nbsp;BY-SA and CC0 licenses as conformant with the "[[The Open Definition|Open Definition]]" for content and data.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Open Definition 2.1 |url=http://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170127074917/http://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/ |archive-date=January 27, 2017 |access-date=January 25, 2023 |website=Open Definition}}</ref><ref name="opendefinition.orgOpen Definition">{{Cite web |title=Conformant Licenses |url=http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160301222106/http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ |archive-date=March 1, 2016 |access-date=January 25, 2023 |website=Open Definition}}</ref><ref name="blog.creativecommons.orgVollmer-2013">{{Cite web |last=Vollmer |first=Timothy |date=2013-12-27 |title=Creative Commons 4.0 BY and BY-SA licenses approved conformant with the Open Definition |url=https://creativecommons.org/2013/12/27/creative-commons-4-0-by-and-by-sa-licenses-approved-conformant-with-the-open-definition/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304102501/https://blog.creativecommons.org/2013/12/27/creative-commons-4-0-by-and-by-sa-licenses-approved-conformant-with-the-open-definition/ |archive-date=2016-03-04 |access-date=2023-01-25 |website=Creative Commons |language=en-US}}</ref>

The CCL allows inventors to keep the rights to their innovations while also allowing for some external use of the invention.<ref name=":2Creative Commons Certificate for Educators, Academic Librarians and GLAM">{{Cite web |title=1.1 The Story of Creative Commons |url=https://certificates.creativecommons.org/cccertedu/chapter/1-1-the-story-of-creative-commons/ |access-date=2021-04-28 |website=Creative Commons Certificate for Educators, Academic Librarians and GLAM |archive-date=April 8, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230408214258/https://certificates.creativecommons.org/cccertedu/chapter/1-1-the-story-of-creative-commons/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The CCL emerged as a reaction to the decision in ''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]'', in which the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled constitutional provisions of the [[Copyright Term Extension Act]] that extended the copyright term of works to be the last living author's lifespan plus an additional 70 years.<ref name=":2Creative Commons Certificate for Educators, Academic Librarians and GLAM" />

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 "[[Creative Commons jurisdiction ports|porting]]".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Murray |first=Laura J. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/844373100 |publisher=Oxford University Press |title=Putting intellectual property in its place : rights discourses, creative labor, and the everyday |date=2014 |others=S. Tina Piper, Kirsty Robertson |isbn=978-0-19-933626-5 |location=Oxford |oclc=844373100 |access-date=April 29, 2021 |archive-date=October 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241005164356/https://search.worldcat.org/title/844373100 |url-status=live }}</ref> As of July 2011, Creative Commons licenses have been ported to over 50 jurisdictions worldwide.<ref>"Worldwide". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on October 15, 2008.</ref>

While [[software]] is also governed by copyright law and CC licenses are applicable, the CC recommends against using it in software specifically due to backward-compatibility limitations with existing commonly used software licenses.<ref>{{Cite web |date=July 29, 2013 |title=Creative Commons FAQ: Can I use a Creative Commons license for software? |url=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101127205528/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F |archive-date=November 27, 2010 |access-date=September 20, 2013 |publisher=Wiki.creativecommons.org |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Non-Software Licenses |url=https://choosealicense.com/non-software/ |access-date=2020-11-13 |website=Choose a License |language=en |archive-date=January 2, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220102152501/https://choosealicense.com/non-software/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Instead, developers may resort to use more software-friendly [[free and open-source|free and open-source software]] (FOSS) [[software license]]s. 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]].<ref name="contentlicense">{{Cite web |title=AssaultCube – License |url=http://assault.cubers.net/docs/license.html#entirepackage |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101225031357/http://assault.cubers.net/docs/license.html |archive-date=25 December 2010 |access-date=2011-01-30 |website=assault.cubers.net |quote=''AssaultCube is FREEWARE. [...] The content, code and images of the AssaultCube website and all documentation are licensed under "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported''}}</ref> Despite the status of CC0 as the most free copyright license, the [[Free Software Foundation]] does not recommend releasing [[public domain software|software into the public domain]] using the CC0 due to patent concerns.<ref name="fsfCC0GNU Project" />

The author, or the licensor in case the author did a contractual transfer of rights, needs to have the exclusive rights on the work. If the work has already been published under a public license, it can be uploaded by any third party, once more on another platform, by using a compatible license, and making reference and attribution to the original license (e.g. by referring to the URL of the original license).<ref name=":0Till Kreutzer-2014" />

The license is non-exclusive, royalty-free, and unrestricted in terms of territory and duration, so it is irrevocable, unless a new license is granted by the author after the work has been significantly modified. Any use of the work that is not covered by other copyright rules triggers the public license. Upon activation of the license, the licensee must adhere to all conditions of the license, otherwise the license agreement is illegitimate, and the licensee would commit a copyright infringement. The author, or the licensor as a proxy, has the legal rights to act upon any copyright infringement. The licensee has a limited period to correct any non-compliance.<ref name=":0Till Kreutzer-2014" />

== Types of licenses {{Anchor|Types of license}}==

The CC licenses all grant "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide for non-commercial purposes and without modification.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 12, 2008 |title=Baseline Rights |url=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Baseline_Rights |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100208081209/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Baseline_Rights |archive-date=February 8, 2010 |access-date=February 22, 2010 |publisher=[[Creative Commons]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref> In addition, different versions of license prescribe different rights, as shown in this table:<ref name="Creative Commons-2020">{{Cite web |last=<!--Not stated--> |date=28 August 2020 |title=Frequently Asked Questions |url=https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-are-creative-commons-licenses |access-date=26 November 2020 |website=Creative Commons |publisher=Creative Commons Corporation |archive-date=November 27, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101127205528/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#what-are-creative-commons-licenses |url-status=live }}</ref>

The last two clauses are not [[free content]] licenses, according to definitions such as [[Debian Free Software Guidelines|DFSG]] or the [[Free Software Foundation]]'s standards, and cannot be used in contexts that require these freedoms, such as [[Wikipedia]]. For [[software]], Creative Commons includes three free licenses created by other institutions: the [[BSD License]], the GNU [[LGPL]], and the GNU [[GNU General Public License|GPL]].<ref name="GNU LGPL">{{Cite web |title=Creative Commons GNU LGPL |url=https://creativecommons.org/license/cc-lgpl |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090622222019/http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-lgpl |archive-date=June 22, 2009 |access-date=July 20, 2009}}</ref>

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.<ref name="retiredlicensesCreative Commons-3">{{Cite web |title=Retired Legal Tools |url=https://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160503224254/https://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses/ |archive-date=May 3, 2016 |access-date=May 31, 2012 |publisher=[[Creative Commons]] |df=mdy}}</ref><ref name="v2announcementCreativecommons.org-2004">{{Cite web |date=May 25, 2004 |title=Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses |url=https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060401/http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 |archive-date=September 21, 2013 |access-date=September 20, 2013 |publisher=Creativecommons.org |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="licensesCreative Commons-2">{{Cite web |title=About The Licenses – Creative Commons |url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150726003931/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ |archive-date=July 26, 2015 |access-date=July 26, 2015 |publisher=[[Creative Commons]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref> This leaves six regularly used licenses plus the CC0 [[public domain]] declaration.

The six licenses in most frequent use are shown in the following table. Among them, those accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation – the public domain dedication and two attribution (BY and BY-SA) licenses – allow the sharing and remixing (creating [[derivative works]]), including for commercial use, so long as attribution is given.<ref name="licensesCreative Commons-2" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=November 16, 2009 |title=Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 United States |url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100224022605/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ |archive-date=February 24, 2010 |access-date=February 22, 2010 |publisher=[[Creative Commons]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="CC0Creative Commons" />

Besides copyright licenses, Creative Commons also offers '''CC0''', a tool for relinquishing copyright and releasing material into the [[public domain]].<ref name="CC0Creative Commons">{{Cite web |title=CC0 |url=https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100226071411/http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero |archive-date=February 26, 2010 |access-date=February 22, 2010 |publisher=[[Creative Commons]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref> CC0 is a legal tool for [[Waiver|waiving]] as many rights as legally possible.<ref name="kreutzerKreutzer">{{Cite web |first=Till |last=Kreutzer |title=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 |url=https://rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/cc0-analysis-kreuzer.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525023540/https://www.rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/cc0-analysis-kreuzer.pdf |archive-date=May 25, 2017 |access-date=July 4, 2017}}</ref> Or, when not legally possible, CC0 acts as fallback as [[public domain equivalent license]].<ref name="kreutzerKreutzer" /> Development of CC0 began in 2007<ref>{{Cite press release |title=Creative Commons Launches CC0 and CC+ Programs |date=December 17, 2007 |publisher=[[Creative Commons]] |url=https://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/7919 |access-date=February 22, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100223053554/http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/7919 |archive-date=February 23, 2010 |df=mdy-all}}</ref> and it was released in 2009.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Baker |first=Gavin |date=January 16, 2009 |title=Report from CC board meeting |url=http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/01/report-from-cc-board-meeting.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100919010433/http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/01/report-from-cc-board-meeting.html |archive-date=September 19, 2010 |access-date=February 22, 2010 |website=Open Access News |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=March 11, 2009 |title=Expanding the Public Domain: Part Zero |url=https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13304 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060406/http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13304 |archive-date=September 21, 2013 |access-date=September 20, 2013 |publisher=Creativecommons.org |df=mdy-all}}</ref> A major target of the license was the scientific data community.<ref name="zero-withdrawChristopher Allan Webber">{{Cite web |last=Christopher Allan Webber |title=CC withdrawl &#91;sic&#93; of CC0 from OSI process |url=http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000231.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906005825/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000231.html |archive-date=2015-09-06 |access-date=February 24, 2012 |website=In the Open Source Initiative Licence review mailing list}}</ref>

In 2011, the [[Free Software Foundation]] added CC0 to its [[List of FSF approved software licenses|free software licenses]]. However, the Free Software Foundation currently does not recommend using CC0 to release [[public domain software|software into the public domain]] because it explicitly does not grant a patent license.<ref name="fsfCC0GNU Project">{{Cite web |title=Various Licenses and Comments about Them |url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100724023833/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html |archive-date=July 24, 2010 |access-date=April 4, 2015 |publisher=[[GNU Project]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In February 2012, CC0 was submitted to [[Open Source Initiative]] (OSI) for their approval.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Carl Boettiger |title=OSI recognition for Creative Commons Zero License? |url=http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-February/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130926193810/http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/ |archive-date=September 26, 2013 |access-date=February 1, 2012 |website=In the Open Source Initiative Licence review mailing list |publisher=Open Source Initiative |df=mdy-all}}</ref> 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 for scientific data rather than software, but some members of the OSI believed it could weaken users' defenses against [[software patent]]s. As a result, Creative Commons withdrew their submission, and the license is not currently approved by the OSI.<ref name="zero-withdrawChristopher Allan Webber" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=The Open Source Initiative FAQ |title=What about the Creative Commons "CC0" ("CC Zero") public domain dedication? Is that Open Source? |date=October 21, 2007 |url=http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130519153636/http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero |archive-date=May 19, 2013 |access-date=May 25, 2013 |publisher=Open Source Initiative |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

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.<ref name="opendefinition.orgOpen Definition" /><ref name="blog.creativecommons.orgVollmer-2013" />

In July 2022 [[Fedora Linux]] disallowed software licensed under CC0 due to patent rights explicitly not being waived under the license.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Claburn |first=Thomas |date=2022-07-25 |title=Fedora sours on CC 'No Rights Reserved' license |url=https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/25/fedora_sours_on_creative_commons/ |access-date=2022-09-14 |website=[[The Register]] |language=en |archive-date=October 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221012114806/https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/25/fedora_sours_on_creative_commons/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Due to either disuse or criticism, a number of previously offered Creative Commons licenses have since been retired,<ref name="retiredlicensesCreative Commons-3" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Lessig |first=Lawrence |author-link=Lawrence Lessig |date=June 4, 2007 |title=Retiring standalone DevNations and one Sampling license |url=https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7520 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070707023305/http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7520 |archive-date=July 7, 2007 |access-date=July 5, 2007 |publisher=[[Creative Commons]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref> 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 country|developing countries]] deemed to be "non-high-income economies" by the [[World Bank]]. Full copyright restrictions apply to people in other countries.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Developing Nations License |url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120412101407/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/ |archive-date=April 12, 2012 |access-date=April 9, 2012 |publisher=[[Creative Commons]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Peters |first=Diane |date=November 25, 2013 |title=CC's Next Generation Licenses — Welcome Version 4.0! |url=https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131126124736/http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 |archive-date=November 26, 2013 |access-date=November 26, 2013 |website=Creative Commons |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |year=2013 |title=What's new in 4.0? |url=https://creativecommons.org/Version4 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131129150056/http://creativecommons.org/Version4 |archive-date=November 29, 2013 |access-date=November 26, 2013 |website=Creative Commons |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=September 25, 2011 |title=CC 4.0, an end to porting Creative Commons licences? |url=http://www.technollama.co.uk/cc-4-0-an-end-to-porting-creative-commons-licenses |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130902134000/http://www.technollama.co.uk/cc-4-0-an-end-to-porting-creative-commons-licenses |archive-date=September 2, 2013 |access-date=August 11, 2013 |publisher=TechnoLlama |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |lastname=Doug Whitfield |date=August 5, 2013 |title=Music Manumit Lawcast with Jessica Coates of "Creative Commons |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHgbWFNEztg |url-status=live2020" |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130814215835/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHgbWFNEztg |archive-date=August 14, 2013 |access-date=August 11, 2013 |publisher=YouTube |df=mdy-all}}</ref> No new ports have been implemented in version 4.0 of the license.<ref>{{Cite web |title=CC Affiliate Network |url=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_Affiliate_Network#The_Licensing_Suite |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110709065022/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_Affiliate_Network#The_Licensing_Suite |archive-date=July 9, 2011 |access-date=July 8, 2011 |publisher=[[Creative Commons]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref> Version 4.0 discourages using ported versions and instead acts as a single global license.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Frequently Asked Questions: What if CC licenses have not been ported to my jurisdiction? |url=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_CC_licenses_have_not_been_ported_to_my_jurisdiction.3F |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131127113420/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_CC_licenses_have_not_been_ported_to_my_jurisdiction.3F |archive-date=November 27, 2013 |access-date=November 26, 2013 |website=Creative Commons |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

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").<ref name="v2announcementCreativecommons.org-2004" /> The attribution must be given to "the best of [one's] ability using the information available".<ref>{{Cite web |date=February 2, 2010 |title=Frequently Frequently Asked Questions |url=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work.3F |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100226070130/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work.3F |archive-date=February 26, 2010 |access-date=February 22, 2010 |publisher=[[Creative Commons]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref> Creative Commons suggests the mnemonic "TASL": ''title'' – ''author – source'' [web link] – [CC] ''licence''.<br /> Generally this implies the following:

The "non-commercial" option included in some Creative Commons licenses is controversial in definition,<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 14, 2009 |title=Defining Noncommercial report published |url=https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060638/http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127 |archive-date=September 21, 2013 |access-date=September 20, 2013 |publisher=Creativecommons.org |df=mdy-all}}</ref> 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 license]]s.<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 26, 2013 |title=The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License |url=http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120709051540/http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC |archive-date=July 9, 2012 |access-date=September 20, 2013 |publisher=Freedomdefined.org |df=mdy-all}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0Till Kreutzer-2014">{{Cite book |last=Till Kreutzer |url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Content_A_Practical_Guide_to_Using_Creative_Commons_Licences_web.pdf |title=Open Content – A Practical Guide to Using Creative Commons Licenses |publisher=[[List of Wikimedia chapters|Wikimedia Deutschland]] e.a. |year=2014 |isbn=978-3-940785-57-2 |access-date=March 23, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150404014103/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Content_A_Practical_Guide_to_Using_Creative_Commons_Licences_web.pdf |archive-date=April 4, 2015 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

! [[File:Public Domain Mark button.svg|alt=Public Domain mark icon|88px]]<br />[[File:CC0 button.svg|alt=CC0 icon|88px]]

! [[File:Cc-by-nc icon.svg|alt=CC-by-NC icon|88px]]<br />[[File:Cc-by-nc-sa icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-NC-SA icon|88px]]

! [[File:Cc-by-nd icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-ND icon|88px]]<br />[[File:Cc-by-nc-nd icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-NC-ND icon|88px]]

! [[File:Public Domain Mark button.svg|alt=Public Domain mark icon|88px]]<br />[[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]]<br />[[File:Cc-by-nc-sa icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-NC-SA icon|88px]]

! [[File:Cc-by-nd icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-ND icon|88px]]<br />[[File:Cc-by-nc-nd icon.svg|alt=CC-BY-NC-ND icon|88px]]

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,<ref name="permissionCohen">{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Noam |title=Use My Photo? Not Without Permission. |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html |url-status=live |access-date=September 25, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110615133400/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html |archive-date=June 15, 2011 |quote=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. |df=mdy-all}}</ref> 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.<ref name="permissionCohen" /> In 2008, the case (concerning [[personality rights]] rather than copyright as such) was thrown out of a Texas court for lack of jurisdiction.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Evan Brown |date=January 22, 2009 |title=No personal jurisdiction over Australian defendant in Flickr right of publicity case |url=http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/01/22/no-personal-jurisdiction-over-australian-defendant-in-flickr-right-of-publicity-case/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110713050011/http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/01/22/no-personal-jurisdiction-over-australian-defendant-in-flickr-right-of-publicity-case/ |archive-date=July 13, 2011 |access-date=September 25, 2010 |publisher=Internet Cases, a blog about law and technology}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=September 27, 2007 |title=Lawsuit Against Virgin Mobile and Creative Commons – FAQ |url=https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110907054202/http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680 |archive-date=September 7, 2011 |access-date=August 31, 2011 |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In the fall of 2006, the [[Copyright collective|collecting society]] {{lang|es|italic=no|Sociedad General de Autores y Editores}} ([[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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mia Garlick |date=March 23, 2006 |title=Spanish Court Recognizes CC-Music |url=https://creativecommons.org/2006/03/23/spanishcourtrecognizesccmusic/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926051259/https://creativecommons.org/2006/03/23/spanishcourtrecognizesccmusic/ |archive-date=September 26, 2023 |access-date=November 22, 2023 |publisher=Creative Commons |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

{{blockquote|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 '[[copyleft|copy left]]'.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Sentencia nº 12/2006 Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 5 de Madrid |website=Derecho de Internet |url=http://www.derecho-internet.org/node/359 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151126165923/http://www.derecho-internet.org/node/359 |archive-date=November 26, 2015 |access-date=2015-12-24 |language=es |df=mdy-all}}</ref>}}

On June 30, 2010, [[GateHouse Media]] filed a lawsuit against That's is Great News. GateHouse Media owns a number of local newspapers, including ''[[Rockford Register Star]]'', which is based in Rockford, Illinois. That's is Great News makes plaques out of newspaper articles and sells them to the people featured in the articles.<ref name="New Copyright Lawsuit">{{Cite web |last=Evan Brown |date=July 2, 2010 |title=New Copyright Lawsuit Involves Creative Commons |url=http://blog.internetcases.com/2010/07/02/new-copyright-lawsuit-involves-creative-commons/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120621215029/http://blog.internetcases.com/2010/07/02/new-copyright-lawsuit-involves-creative-commons/ |archive-date=June 21, 2012 |access-date=April 20, 2012 |publisher=Internet Cases: A blog about law and technology |df=mdy-all}}</ref> GateHouse sued That's is 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.<ref name="New Copyright Lawsuit" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=August 5, 2010 |title=GateHouse Media v. That's Great News |url=http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/gatehouse-media-v-thats-great-news#description |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120502165158/http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/gatehouse-media-v-thats-great-news#description |archive-date=May 2, 2012 |access-date=April 20, 2012 |publisher=Citizen Media Law Project |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

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 identifier for the license.<!--NB: The court found that it was a valid URN. But don't report this here because, in fact, it is not a URN (it doesn't follow the URN schema; see [[Uniform Resource Name]]). The court's reasoning was incorrect on a basic technical level, even if the legal outcome is reasonable--><ref>{{Cite web |author-linkname=Michael"University W.of CarrollMichigan |first=MichaelLibrary" W. |last=Carroll |title=Carrollogos: U.S. Court Correctly Interprets Creative Commons Licenses |url=https://carrollogos.blogspot.com/2016/04/us-court-correctly-interprets-creative.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171002120451/https://carrollogos.blogspot.com/2016/04/us-court-correctly-interprets-creative.html |archive-date=October 2, 2017 |access-date=2017-10-02 |df=mdy-all}}</ref><!--Self-published source, but nonetheless reliable as the author is an acknowledged subject-matter expert-->

=== {{lang|de|Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet}} (VGSE) ===

In July 2016, German computer magazine ''[[LinuxUser]]'' reported that a German blogger Christoph Langner used two {{nowrap|CC BY}}-licensed photographs from Berlin photographer Dennis Skley on his private blog Linuxundich. Langner duly mentioned the author and the license and added a link to the original. Langner was later contacted by the {{lang|de|Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet|italics=no}} (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 required by the fine print in the license. Of this sum, €40 goes to the photographer, and the remainder is retained by VGSE.<ref name="lutherLuther-2016">{{Cite journal |last=Luther |first=Jörg |date=July 2016 |title=Kleingedrucktes – Editorial |trans-title=Fine print – Editorial |url=http://www.linux-community.de/Internal/Artikel/Print-Artikel/LinuxUser/2016/07/Kleingedrucktes |url-status=live |journal=[[LinuxUser]] |language=de |issn=1615-4444 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160915150620/http://www.linux-community.de/Internal/Artikel/Print-Artikel/LinuxUser/2016/07/Kleingedrucktes |archive-date=September 15, 2016 |access-date=2016-09-09 |number=7/2016 |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="feilFeil Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft-2014">{{Cite web |date=8 January 2014 |title=Abmahnung des Verbandes zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VSGE) |trans-title=Notice to cease and desist from the Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Internet (VSGE) |url=https://www.recht-freundlich.de/abmahnung-urheberrechtlich-filesharing/abmahnung-des-verbandes-zum-schutz-geistigen-eigentums-im-internet-vsge |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160914075031/https://www.recht-freundlich.de/abmahnung-urheberrechtlich-filesharing/abmahnung-des-verbandes-zum-schutz-geistigen-eigentums-im-internet-vsge |archive-date=September 14, 2016 |access-date=2016-09-09 |publisher=Feil Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft |language=de |location=Hannover, Germany |df=mdy-all}}</ref> The Higher Regional Court of Cologne dismissed the claim in May 2019.<ref>{{Cite web |date=22 May 2019 |title=Creative Commons-Foto-Abmahnung: Rasch Rechtsanwälte setzen erfolgreich Gegenansprüche durch |trans-title=Creative Commons photo notice: Rasch attorneys successfully enforce counterclaims |url=https://www.anwalt.de/rechtstipps/creative-commons-foto-abmahnung-rasch-rechtsanwaelte-setzen-erfolgreich-gegenansprueche-durch_155491.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191219023851/https://www.anwalt.de/rechtstipps/creative-commons-foto-abmahnung-rasch-rechtsanwaelte-setzen-erfolgreich-gegenansprueche-durch_155491.html |archive-date=December 19, 2019 |access-date=18 December 2019 |website=anwalt.de |language=de}}</ref>

After being proposed by Creative Commons in 2017,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-07-24 |title=Proposal to add CC license symbols to UCS |url=http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17242r-creative-commons.pdf |access-date=2020-08-21 |website=Unicode |archive-date=March 26, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210326234933/http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17242r-creative-commons.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Creative Commons license symbols were added to [[Unicode]] with version 13.0 in 2020.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Steuer |first=Eric |date=2020-03-18 |title=The Unicode Standard Now Includes CC License Symbols |url=https://creativecommons.org/2020/03/18/the-unicode-standard-now-includes-cc-license-symbols/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200727183045/https://creativecommons.org/2020/03/18/the-unicode-standard-now-includes-cc-license-symbols/ |archive-date=2020-07-27 |access-date=2020-07-06 |website=Creative Commons |language=en-US}}</ref> The circle with an equal sign (meaning ''no derivatives'') is present in older versions of Unicode, unlike all the other symbols.

meaning ''[[Share-alike|share alike]]''

|[[File:Cc-by_newby new.svg|center|26px]]

In December{{nbsp}}2020, the Creative Commons organization launched an online database covering licensing case law and legal scholarship.<ref name="salazarSalazar-2020">{{Cite web |last=Salazar |first=Krystle |date=3 December 2020 |title=Explore the new CC legal database site! |url=https://creativecommons.org/2020/12/03/explore-the-new-cc-legal-database-site/ |access-date=2021-01-03 |website=Creative Commons |location=Mountain View, California, US |archive-date=January 3, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210103130857/https://creativecommons.org/2020/12/03/explore-the-new-cc-legal-database-site/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="creative-commonsCreative Commons-ongoing4">{{Cite web |last=Creative Commons |title=Creative Commons Legal Database |url=https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/ |access-date=2021-01-03 |website=Creative Commons |location=Mountain View, California, US |archive-date=January 17, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210117035744/https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/ |url-status=live }}</ref>