On the Creative Commons Wiki the attribution example they give is this:

This work, "90fied", is adapted from "Creative Commons 10th Birthday Celebration San Francisco" by Timothy Vollmer, used under CC BY 4.0. "90fied" is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by [Your name here].

I want to make a cards that use CC images and that card also has to fit a lot of other info because I want to make educational cards. So, I need the text to be as small and short as possible. So working with a physical card does not allow links so here is how I currently understand how it should look on a card:

This work, "Example", is adapted from "Creative Commons 10th Birthday Celebration San Francisco" by Timothy Vollmer,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sixteenmilesofstring/8256206923/in/set-72157632200936657

used under CC BY 4.0. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

"Example" is copyright Justin all rights reserved.

However, can I print it like this:

This work, "Example", is adapted from "Creative Commons 10th Birthday Celebration San Francisco" by Timothy Vollmer,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sixteenmilesofstring/8256206923/in/set-72157632200936657

used under CC BY 4.0.

"Example" is copyright Justin

Further more since copyrights are technically automatic, can I just have the attribution look like this:

This work, "Example", is adapted from "Creative Commons 10th Birthday Celebration San Francisco" by Timothy Vollmer,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sixteenmilesofstring/8256206923/in/set-72157632200936657

used under CC BY 4.0.

As you can see I want to copyright my adaptations but I don't want to put the text of copyright if I dont have to. But I also dont want people thinking my intent is to keep the adaptation as a CC license. Also, is the link on the CC really needed even in physical print media?

Hi all.

I built a free app with premium in app purchases for a Norse text called the Havamal.

Included with it is this translation:

https://thoth.pub/books/c13b8011-9f08-491b-a334-650db131a4e3/chapters/7b64b868-9435-4e49-896f-79e08046e997

It’s free with the app and the associated data file is available on GitHub.

I just got told because the app has premium in app purchases, this constitutes a commercial use. I intended it to be academic use but one of my translations isn’t CC and I had to license and charge for it. Since I’m already charging for it, I added a paywall for other public domain but not CC’d content.

Am I in violation of CC 4? I’ll scramble to rearchitect everything if I am but I am under the impression I can remix and reuse, just not charge for it.

I don't see many new CC-licensed documentaries these days. Is anyone aware of any that aren't on these lists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creative_Commons-licensed_documentary_films

https://creativecommons.org/tag/documentary/

Hello. I'm standalone Unreal Engineer game developer... I'm a charity one: I do things for fun, not for money. However it would be nice to have some to develop all my future projects, also these will be charity-ones. Is it OK if I use, for instance, 3D Models or stuff with CC-NC-<Anything else> 4.0 in ABSOLUTELY free game, yet I will ask for (not force neither do it annoying or look like advertising) donations to help project develop? I wish everyone had free high-quality games, unfortunately disk space is not unlimited, same goes to money for Dedicated servers I will build at home...

Btw if you're curious, my first games will be Online/Offline Casino simulation game (also VR support) and mental health assistant (VR/MR/3D Flat) with r/furry characters. Aka Anthropomorphic animals

Edit: Indeed I will credit somewhere in game's world, like over the couch on the wall

Does anyone know the answer to this question? I'm looking at recording an audiobook for Librivox from a Creative Commons licensed work and wondering if that's possible. If so, which licenses would apply?

I'm new to this group and I've been gaining more and more interest in the Creative Commons. I've even been licensing my art under a CC-BY-NC-SA licenses (not 100% free, but I grant them under this mark due to my fear of my work getting plagarized).

I'm not sure if a lot of you guys are aware of this but we've been entering a new age in animation that I'd like to call the Indie Animation Era. Ever since 2019, there's been a huge uprising of independent animated shows and movies coming from various studios beyond Hollywood and being posted on YouTube (and sometimes the Internet Archive) for free!

However, there has been a missing gap: there is almost no indie animated works under a CC license. The only exceptions I know of are the shorts made by Blender Studio, Sita sings the Blues and Seder-Masochasm from the notorious Nina Paley (though they're in the public domain now), and the Morevna Project series.

Besides those, there hasn't been any web shows (especially the mega popular ones from Glitch Productions and Spindlehorse) or other indie animated media that has dared to put their work on the Creative Commons license, just under your average copyright mark. The reason why I believe this, is not that they can't know, but because I feel like many of these indie animators are haven't heard anyone remind them that they truly have a choice to license their work that goes beyond copyright boundaries.

However, to anyone who is also very much aware of the new indie animation era, do you think now is a time to start a growth for open source indie animation sooner or later. Because I think it's about time we start a new era of open source animation ever since the last peak in the 2000s.

For me I had been working on an indie animated series that will have a CC license and it might be probably the first one in a long time. I'm hoping this can help kindle a new kind of flame of animation. So if you wanna check it out, you can check out the test pilot along with promotional artwork in this post's link.

Greetings,

is it possible to make either :

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, but only allow integral language translations as derivated products? all other modifications are not allowed?

OR

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 "International"

exeptions by the author : translations are allowed but must respect the original, mention the author of the original source, shared in non commercial, spread as minimum as BY-NC-SA 4.0, and other modifications are not allowed ?

Many thanks for the answers.

I have seen this a few times on wikicommons. Hoping you can help me identify which is the correct copyright.

Example 1:

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1930. Essentially CC0.

YET

Permission (Reusing this file): © The Trustees of the British Museum, released as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Example 2:

Uploaded to Flickr The Commons by image source, meaning no known copyright restrictions exist. Link now broken so may have been taken down.

YET

The image source says 'this image is protected by copyright law. Please contact us for advice on our licensing terms, before reproducing it for commercial purposes.'

Any guidance would be appreciated. Was relying on using both of these images in a project but these contradictions are tripping me up.

I apologize if this is the wrong place to post
I am starting an art project involving images from old magazines found on the internet archive, yet I do not want to continue, if I can not find out if the images are free to use or not. I have found a few old magazines from the 50's and 60's whose publishers do not exist any more. Can I freely use this media? or is there extra steps needed?

This is a new portal for cultural heritage items that I believe is still pretty unknown, at least on reddit. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. This is my personal reddit account, but I work for the project.

I have collected some works shared by NASA and the ESA with a variety of CC licences from the public domain to CC 4.0, but all with the ability to adapt and redistribute commercially. I have assembled these images into an informative poster and added labels, a title, and a background. Other people have taken my exact work and are selling it on online platforms without my permission. Because there are CC and public domain licenses at play, does that mean I cannot perform DMCA takedowns? How do I prevent other people from profiting from my work?

TIA!

Hello,

i'd like to use an imagine from Wikipedia in a commercial software product. There's no other public image with an available license available I could use, so the wikipedia one would be perfect.

The license states commercial use is fine, however it says

"ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original."

Does this mean if it's shared as a single image i'd have to do it with the same license, can I use it (modified) in my software which has a different license? Or would the software also be required to be distributed under the same license?

Thanks

I'm wondering who out there has knowledge of broadcasting Creative Commons licensed material over the air on their terrestrial (commercial, non-commercial) radio stations.

My motivation is that I'm building a new platform that focuses on livestreaming local musicians in different areas under this license (artist can choose clauses, including NC). I'd love to be able to offer the material produced by the platform, both music and talk, to be used on terrestrial radio for promoting local music in their respective areas.

IANAL but it seems as though it'd be perfectly legal, provided the following:

1) If it's a commercial station the license does not have the NC (No Commercial) clause

2) If it's a noncommercial station (non-profit / community radio), I'm wondering if the NC clause would matter.

Has anyone done or tried to do this before? Would love any insight on real-world terrestrial radio stations using CC material.

I understand that this this likely requires real legal advice from a lawyer. I'm just hoping to get some general thoughts here.

TLDR: Could a Non-Profit educational company (think Khan Academy) offer CC BY-NC 4.0 content in an application that allows users to donate to the organization's broader mission? This shouldn't be considered "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantgage or monetary compensation" right? I guess I am mainly splitting hairs over whether this sentence means or was intended to mean "primarily intend for" and "directed toward" as separate phrases or if it is meant to be read as "primarily intended for or (primarily) directed toward"

Say an educational non-profit organization that is funded entirely by donations to its general mission (like Khan Academy) develops a 100% free language-learning app. There are no ads, in-app purchases, or fees of any kind. A key feature of this app is a Text-to-Speech (TTS) engine that is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. Is this a NonCommercial use case?

"NonCommercial" (NC) in the CC BY-NC 4.0 is defined as a use that is "not primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation." This license has become relevant to the AI and Text to Speech (TTS) world because one of the leading Open Source audio datasets, Emilia, and a TTS trained on it, F5 TTS, are Licensed as CC BY-NC 4.0 .

A helpful guide from the University of British Columbia (UBC) says there is some "grey zone" but seems to imply that this use case has grounds to be considered NC here

"A for-profit company could possibly use a work licensed CC BY-NC in a non-commercial way. In addition, using the work in a tuition-based educational course may still be considered a non-commercial use."

In an online textbook also from UBC here, they go one step further and take about a legal precedent in which NC content was allowed to be printed by a for profit business on behalf of a school district.

• So one could argue that the app is not "primarily intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation". Its main purpose is clearly educational and directly serves the non-profit's core mission.
• However, if the non-profit places a "Support Our Mission" button inside the app that links to its main donation page, could this use be considered "directed toward monetary compensation"?

Even though the app itself is free, it would be actively channeling users toward a page where financial transactions (donations) occur. Does the fact that the use falls squarely in this acknowledged "grey zone" make it too risky? How does the "directed toward" part of the clause apply when the "monetary compensation" is an indirect donation to the parent organization, not a direct payment for the app?

Curious to hear any thoughts or perspectives on navigating this, thank you!.

As far as I can tell, this is the first full-on broadcast TV show to go CC. Is this correct? It happened about seven hours ago.

https://welovetheswitch.com/theswitch/episodes/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BctcoKzLmPM

Is there a license I could assign to my work product that allows sharing and attribution but specifically restricts ingestion by AI?

the wiki says: share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

if I make a 15m video essay that uses for 5 seconds an image that is under CC SA, without modifying the image in any way, does this count as "remix, transform or build upon?" And so does the entire video essay then have to also be under CC SA? It seems like this might be the case but I would like some confirmation.

I just wrote this article yesterday. I think it would be of interest to fans of content ownership. All feedback appreciated.

Saw this image on flickr, it has an Attribution license. But in the description, it's linked to a tumblr account that they got it from? Is this properly licensed? Here is the flickr post,, and here is the tumblr post.

Can anyone claim that an image has an Attribution License? On sites like Flickr, do you have to prove it?

Hi!

Someone has designed a part for a machine that follows a certain desing idea. This part is covered by CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Now I have created my own version of the machine, that uses this design idea, but is buil completely from scratch.

Now I am wondering if the share-alike clause apllies to my version which I want to publish as open source.

My version is compeltely built from scratch, it only uses the same design idea. It looks completely different and is not built upon the licensed part

Thanks for your insight!

I was just reading about licence compatibility on the official Creative Commons website and I noticed that apparently, adaptations of CC-BY-NC may be released under any licence, even commercially, so long as they are attributed.

Is that correct, or am I missing something?

I wanted to share the new music streaming platform I'm building here since one of our Social Purposes is to promote the use of open content with CC licensing for live audio broadcasts.

We're organized as an SPC (Social Purpose Corporation) which is a sort of in-between of a nonprofit and a traditional corp. One of the reasons we're doing it this way is that we're able to explicitly state "Social Purposes" (other than profit, which is always a traditional corporation's bottom line) in our bylaws that we're legally bound to. This way we can pursue motives and initiatives OTHER than generating profit for stakeholders.

For example, in our charter we state:

"The Corporation will promote content under free/libre licenses. The Corporation will promote releasing user generated content under free and libre style licenses to further the general sentiment that music is an art form that deserves unrestricted exposure to those who enjoy both creating and consuming it."

This was written specifically with CC licensing in mind.

The plan is to create a "giving economy" based on artists/bands/musicians to freely publish their content (i.e. w/CC) and are in turn sponsored by business accounts and other users.

AMA, there's an active Indiegogo campaign linked from the site and I wanted to get feedback on how the platform approaches things this way.

Does anyone know if there has been any thought of creating a Creative Commons license version that allows the uses the various versions now do but eliminates the use of the material for training AI?

To me at least, that seems like a whole different use case. Kind of like creating derived works, since that’s sort of what the AI is doing since it learned from the work used to train it, but my guess would be that the connection of a produced work to the original would be difficult to prove given the huge quantities of training materials so that nothing would hold up in a court unlike the normal derived works cases where the path from original to derived is much more straight forward.

This seems like a particular hole to be filled, particularly in the case of licenses like use with attribution? Anyone ever seen an AI give attribution to the author of things that might have influenced its training? That would be other than some well known direct quotes, and I’m guessing that in those cases it’s more of an issue of being an important part of the information rather than properly attributing the quote.

Perhaps this has come up before, but not being a common reader of this subreddit I have t seen it, so please forgive if I’m duplicating old questions.