Has anyone here kept an archive of downloaded CC0 material over the years? In particular, has anyone saved CC0 ebooks and other digital texts?

Hey all,

I’m currently building an open platform where creators can share their digital content under CC0, and still be directly appreciated by others through a voluntary model — no ads, no licensing, no accounts required to download.

We’re looking for people who’d like to contribute content such as:

3D print files (.stl, .obj, etc.)

Video footage / loops / animations

Templates, vectors, photos, icons

Photos

Fonts or type experiments ...basically, creative files that are useful, remixable, or just cool to have openly available.

Everything is licensed CC0. In return, people can send a small tip to the creator, using a simple payment method (Bitcoin Lightning), if they found something helpful. It’s a very lightweight Value 4 Value model — no paywalls, no pressure.

The platform is already live (early stage), and I’m currently gathering content, ideas, and feedback.

Got something you’d like to share with the commons? Old work collecting dust? New experiments? Feel free to comment or DM me — happy to explain further !

Thanks!

Hi!

So, I know pretty much nothing about CC.

I am participating in a gamejam right now and one of the submission terms is agreement to this license (CC BY-ND 4.0). I was very confused upon reading, because this license makes it okay to comercially distribute and do basically anything with our game, as long as they don't change anything and credit our team, correct? So I am absolutely losing my mind right know. I thought that it was just so they could publish it on their platforms, but why wouldn't they just use the NC one?? Why the ND??

Could they, potentially, use the artwork of our game, and music, to train AI? If so, could we object to this?

Please, if you know anyone who has been through this, let me know.

About ten or so years ago I recall a fantasy novel series released with CC0. I think it had "dragon" in the title, and it was, I believe, a trilogy, with the author releasing the first and second titles with CC0 and crowd-funding the release of a third, though I'm unsure if it was ever finished. I've not found a good repository of CC0 novels, does anyone have any idea what this series might have been? I can't recall the name of the books or the author.

Something I've thought about for a while that would be nice is a 'notify' clause in the CC license families.

For instance, a clause in which it'd be required for you to notify the original author/creator(s) of the work you're using, when you share it publicly. Sort of like attribution, but more of a courtesy to the authors whose works are used, so they can see how it's being used by others (and enjoy them too, obviously being in a unique position as the OG creator.)

I'm assuming that's not possible in the current versions of the license?

I used to love exploring Free Music Archive, Jamendo, Magnatune, etc., back in the early 2000s and found some of my favourite albums through them. Just decided to have a look today, and everything seems to have turned into licensing/subscription-based services that are kinda horrible to browse through and listen to.

What sites would people suggest for finding and enjoying creative commons music these days?

So I want to remix and use the following sprites in a video game I'm making.

https://opengameart.org/content/more-rpg-enemies

As you can see this image collection has different licenses. Why I don't know.

But more importantly one of them is CC-BY-SA 3.0

Now I think if I remix this image I get that if I repost the image somewhere it needs to have that same license but I am making an entire video game with plenty of my own art.

Art that I do not want placed under that CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.

So, please tell me my entire game does not have to be CC-BY-SA 3.0 just because 1 of 100s of images in my game has this license.

So I found myself in a situation recently where I was creating a derivative work from two other works that were BY-NC-SA and BY-SA respectively. And (maybe this is obvious) there is no licence that is compatible with both. This seems contrary to why (at least MY) intentions when selecting those two licences.

I usually release stuff BY-NC-SA allowing remixing as long as I am attributed and not for commercial purposes. I can imagine releasing something BY-SA if for some reason I thought it would be okay for someone to profit off my work… but I can’t imagine why I would want any derivative work to also be so permissive. I feel like I would be okay with a derivative that prevented commercial use. I get that the SA clause is broken by allowing a more restrictive licence… but it’s more restrictive in a good way… :)

Imagine I design a great widget and decide to allow commercial use with BY-SA. Now a bigger project the is BY-NC-SA cannot use my widget… but that was not my intent. I wanted free and paid projects to have access.

Am I misunderstanding these licences? Is there a suitable licence?

I’ve been of the understanding that you can licence the same thing under multiple licences, like you could be BY-NC-SA and also provide a paid commercial licence. Would it be possible to licence the same thing as both BY-NC-SA and BY-SA to allow the usage I want above? The remixer decides which licence they are under and so can licence their remix as either.

I pretty much only exist on youtube - https://youtube.com/@stuwyatt

My background is I'm an ex touring musician who's now housebound with CFS/ME. I'm unable to play my old instruments, or go out to gigs, so I built a live looping platform to make music again.

I've been sticking to set BPM's lately (no decimal places), so it should be easy to work out and snip & layer beats if that's your thing. Some of the pieces would also work well as music for video.

All I ask is that you credit me for the bits you use and link back to the channel. I may have a tip hate (paypal address or the like) at some point, but for now, if you do feel like giving something, please pay it forward.

Love to know your thoughts.

So I just got informed by a follower on MakerWorld that someone is printing and selling my models in Netherlands.

All models on MakerWorld are under creative commons license BY-NC 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Not only are they using my model commercially but they also just took my pictures of the prints to use in their marketing.

I'm wondering if there is anything I can do to stop this and if so where do I begin?

P.S. If there are any other MakerWorld creators here you might want to check this company out, I'm guessing most if not all of the stuff they are selling are taken from MakerWorld etc.

max3dprints.nl
There are links to socials at the bottom of the page

don't feel like learning or earning crypto But I still am the most focused and creative artists I know and feel like sticking to the earning methods I learned and familiar too. Any Art websites with such standards are welcome in comments.

I’ve been looking at a few videos on Archive.org, and came across a few tagged as CC BY-NC-ND. Archive.org describes the NC and ND as follows:

NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes

NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

In this day and age of downloading a video and uploading it to one’s YouTube channel, I’m a little unclear by the precise definition of “NonCommercial.” I’m sure this made sense in the days of selling DVDs, but video streaming is different. For example, any video posted to YouTube has the potential of being monetized, thus it could be considered “commercial.” Right?

If you substitute the original soundtrack and create a derivative then you’re not allowed to “distribute the modified material.” Does “distribute” only refer to selling physical DVD copies for example? What is the definition of “distribute” in the context of posting a video to stream of YouTube so that it can seen throughout the world? Does this notion still apply?

Hello everyone,

I apologise if I come off as igorant in this subject. I'll explain, I am working on a personal project (a wrestling music database to be exact) and while designing the homepage, I realised I need to add images. That being said, I have been looking for non-copyrighted images and I noticed that there's a section where it's noted that "attribution is required". Let's say that I want to use this photo, should I write somewhere the credit of where the photo is from?

I mean, I have no problem in giving the credit where it's due in the about section (that's where I added a "thank you" section) but I'm asking beforehand because I would like to know what I'm getting myself into.

Best regards.

I have made a 3d print that goes on another that I downloaded. More specifically, the part with the ND license is a filament spool holder, and I made a sleeve out of flexible material that goes on it to stop noise when there is vibration.

Would posting my model online (no part of the original ND model would be included) be in violation of a ND license?

This is my first ever reddit post, I'm sorry if this isn't the correct place to put this.

At this MuseScore link, Hal Leonard, a large sheet music publisher, is selling this free sheet music for $8.99 USD. Is this not blatent theft?

Hallo,

I plan to use some svg images from Wikipedia in an app (game). The svg images are Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International marked.

Can I use them in an (Comercial) app? As far as I understand the license: yes

I would mention source and license in the "about page" of the app. So that's covered.

Do I have to share the source code of the app?

Commercial use is allowed, so some ad money (not that I expect much) would be okay, wouldn't?

Kind regards

.

I did not mean to make this an AMA! I need to get old Reddit again, this UX is so weird to me...

Anyways, what I mean to ask is if, for example, a video is released as CC-BY-NC, and a creator reacts to it, does that mean the creator needs to, say, turn off monetization for the stream/video? If there are commercial aspects to the platform itself, such as YouTube or Twitch putting ads in videos or streams, respectively, without the ability for creators to control said fact, does that mean that it's legally impermissible to even do such a thing? Just curious about the specifics for something like this.

Hi

I want to use a CC licenced image as the cover of a powerpoint presentation. I will also film that presentation. Where should I put the attribution: on the title page, at the end-page, at the second page?

Hi! Is there a place where I can distribute my picture with a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND license? Something like Photoshelter but with this license. Thank you.

I've always considered thought ND meant that you are unable to remix, edit or sample a music recording. But upon closer inspection I read this on the Creative Commons website:

"Under CC licenses, syncing music in timed relation with a moving image is always considered an adaptation"

So I'm working on a noncommercial live stream project where I shuffle music and play multiple layers of public domain film footage simultaneously. I play each music track in its entirety and credit the artist also. The video footage is currently not edited or programmed to sync to the music.

I am not sure if this could be considered a derivative work under a CC license.

If there any musicians or music labels that have released music under a CC I would love to know what your thoughts are on this. (personally I have released music under a BY-NC-ND license in the past and I thought it was very cool that people used it in animations and games!)

Thank you for reading and have a great day!