Creative Commons license#Types of licenses

File:Aaron Swartz and Lawrence Lessig.jpg and Lawrence Lessig at the 2002 event for the first release of the licenses]]

Lawrence Lessig and Eric Eldred designed the Creative Commons License (CCL) in 2001 because they saw a need for a license between the existing modes of copyright and public domain status. Version 1.0 of the licenses was officially released on 16 December 2002.{{Cite web |date=2002-12-16 |title=Creative Commons Unveils Machine-Readable Copyright Licenses |url=http://www.creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/3476 |website=Creative Commons |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021222175127/http://www.creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/3476 |archive-date=December 22, 2002}}

The CCL allows inventors to keep the rights to their innovations while also allowing for some external use of the invention.{{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 }} 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.

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".{{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 }} As of July 2011, Creative Commons licenses have been ported to over 50 jurisdictions worldwide."Worldwide". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on October 15, 2008.

Working with Creative Commons, the Chinese government adapted the Creative Commons License to the Chinese context, replacing the individual monetary compensation of U.S. copyright law with incentives to Chinese innovators to innovate as a social contribution.{{Cite journal |last=Meng |first=Bingchun |date=2009-01-26 |title=Articulating a Chinese Commons: An Explorative Study of Creative Commons in China |url=https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/441 |journal=International Journal of Communication |language=en |volume=3 |pages=16 |issn=1932-8036}}

File:Wanna Work Together? with subtitles - Creative Commons.ogv

File:Mayer and Bettle 2 - Creative Commons.ogv as an example]]

Work licensed under a Creative Commons license is governed by applicable copyright law.{{Cite web |date=January 9, 2008 |title=Creative Commons Legal Code |url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/legalcode |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100211175916/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/legalcode |archive-date=February 11, 2010 |access-date=February 22, 2010 |publisher=Creative Commons |df=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 CC recommends against using it in software specifically due to backward-compatibility limitations with existing commonly used software licenses.{{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}}{{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 }} Instead, developers may resort to use more software-friendly free and open-source software (FOSS) software licenses. Outside the FOSS licensing use case for software there are several usage examples to utilize CC licenses to specify a "Freeware" license model; examples are The White Chamber, Mari0 or Assault Cube.{{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}} Despite the status of CC0 as the most free copyright license, the Free Software Foundation does not recommend releasing software into the public domain using the CC0 due to patent concerns.

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.{{Cite web |title=Do Creative Commons licenses affect exceptions and limitations to copyright, such as fair dealing and fair use? |url=https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Do_Creative_Commons_licenses_affect_exceptions_and_limitations_to_copyright.2C_such_as_fair_dealing_and_fair_use.3F |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150808182345/https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Do_Creative_Commons_licenses_affect_exceptions_and_limitations_to_copyright.2C_such_as_fair_dealing_and_fair_use.3F |archive-date=August 8, 2015 |access-date=July 26, 2015 |website=Frequently Asked Questions – Creative Commons |df=mdy-all}} Furthermore, Creative Commons licenses are non-exclusive and non-revocable.{{Cite web |title=What if I change my mind about using a CC license? |url=https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_my_mind_about_using_a_CC_license.3F |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150808182345/https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_my_mind_about_using_a_CC_license.3F |archive-date=August 8, 2015 |access-date=July 26, 2015 |website=Frequently Asked Questions – Creative Commons |df=mdy-all}} Any work or copies of the work obtained under a Creative Commons license may continue to be used under that license.{{Cite web |title=What happens if the author decides to revoke the CC license to material I am using? |url=https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_happens_if_the_author_decides_to_revoke_the_CC_license_to_material_I_am_using.3F |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150808182345/https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_happens_if_the_author_decides_to_revoke_the_CC_license_to_material_I_am_using.3F |archive-date=August 8, 2015 |access-date=July 26, 2015 |website=Frequently Asked Questions – Creative Commons |df=mdy-all}}

When works are protected by more than one Creative Commons license, the user may choose any of them.{{Cite web |title=How do CC licenses operate? |url=https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_CC_licenses_operate.3F |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150808182345/https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_CC_licenses_operate.3F |archive-date=August 8, 2015 |access-date=July 26, 2015 |website=Frequently Asked Questions – Creative Commons |df=mdy-all}}

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).

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.

The CC licenses all grant "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide for non-commercial purposes and without modification.{{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}} In addition, different versions of license prescribe different rights, as shown in this table:{{Cite web |last= |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 }}

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 Wikipedia. For software, Creative Commons includes three free licenses created by other institutions: the BSD License, the GNU LGPL, and the GNU GPL.{{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}}

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.{{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}}{{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}}{{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}} This leaves six regularly used licenses plus the CC0 public domain declaration.

{{anchor|Six regularly used licenses}}

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.{{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}}

{{Redirect-distinguish|CC0|CCO (disambiguation)}}

File:Cc-zero.svg

File:Cc-public domain mark white.svg. Indicates works which have already fallen into (or were given to) the public domain.]]

Besides copyright licenses, Creative Commons also offers CC0, a tool for relinquishing copyright and releasing material into the public domain.{{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}} CC0 is a legal tool for waiving as many rights as legally possible.{{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}} Or, when not legally possible, CC0 acts as fallback as public domain equivalent license. Development of CC0 began in 2007{{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}} and it was released in 2009.{{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}}{{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}} A major target of the license was the scientific data community.{{Cite web |last=Christopher Allan Webber |title=CC withdrawl [sic] 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}}

In 2010, Creative Commons announced its Public Domain Mark,{{Cite web |date=August 10, 2010 |title=Marking and Tagging the Public Domain: An Invitation to Comment |url=https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/22940 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060643/http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/22940 |archive-date=September 21, 2013 |access-date=September 20, 2013 |publisher=Creativecommons.org |df=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,{{Cite web |date=August 20, 2009 |title=Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain Certification |url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100223035835/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ |archive-date=February 23, 2010 |access-date=February 22, 2010 |publisher=Creative Commons |df=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. However, the Free Software Foundation currently does not recommend using CC0 to release software into the public domain because it explicitly does not grant a patent license.{{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}}

In February 2012, CC0 was submitted to Open Source Initiative (OSI) for their approval.{{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}} 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 patents. As a result, Creative Commons withdrew their submission, and the license is not currently approved by the OSI.{{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}}

From 2013 to 2017, the stock photography website Unsplash used the CC0 license,{{Cite web |date=August 14, 2013 |title=Unsplash is a site full of free images for your next splash page |url=https://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2013/08/14/unsplash-is-a-site-full-of-images-you-can-use-freely-for-your-next-startups-splash-page/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117024732/http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2013/08/14/unsplash-is-a-site-full-of-images-you-can-use-freely-for-your-next-startups-splash-page/ |archive-date=November 17, 2015 |access-date=2015-11-13 |website=The Next Web |language=en-US |df=mdy-all}}{{Cite web |title=License {{!}} Unsplash |url=https://unsplash.com/license |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117015514/https://unsplash.com/license |archive-date=November 17, 2015 |access-date=2015-11-13 |website=unsplash.com |df=mdy-all}} distributing several million free photos a month.{{Cite web |date=February 18, 2015 |title=Why Building Something Useful For Others Is The Best Marketing There Is |url=http://www.fastcompany.com/3042417/how-i-get-it-done/why-building-something-useful-for-others-is-the-best-marketing-there-is |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151114225726/http://www.fastcompany.com/3042417/how-i-get-it-done/why-building-something-useful-for-others-is-the-best-marketing-there-is |archive-date=November 14, 2015 |access-date=2015-11-13 |website=Fast Company |language=en-US |df=mdy-all}} Lawrence Lessig, the founder of Creative Commons, has contributed to the site.{{Cite web |title=Lawrence Lessig {{!}} Unsplash Book |url=https://book.unsplash.com/lawrence-lessig/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117022116/https://book.unsplash.com/lawrence-lessig/ |archive-date=November 17, 2015 |access-date=2015-11-13 |website=book.unsplash.com |df=mdy-all}} Unsplash moved from using the CC0 license to a custom license in June 2017{{Cite web |date=June 22, 2017 |title=Community update: Unsplash branded license and ToS changes |url=https://creativecommons.org/2017/06/22/unsplash/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180107174853/https://creativecommons.org/2017/06/22/unsplash/ |archive-date=January 7, 2018 |access-date=2018-01-07 |df=mdy-all}} and to an explicitly nonfree license in January 2018.

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.

In July 2022, Fedora Linux disallowed software licensed under CC0 due to patent rights explicitly not being waived under the license.{{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 }}

Due to either disuse or criticism, a number of previously offered Creative Commons licenses have since been retired,{{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}} 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.{{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}}
• Sampling: parts of the work can be used for any purpose other than advertising, but the whole work cannot be copied or modified{{Cite web |title=Sampling 1.0 |url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling/1.0/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120316011404/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling/1.0/ |archive-date=March 16, 2012 |access-date=April 9, 2012 |publisher=Creative Commons |df=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 purposes{{Cite web |date=November 13, 2009 |title=Sampling Plus 1.0 |url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120411100732/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ |archive-date=April 11, 2012 |access-date=April 9, 2012 |publisher=Creative Commons |df=mdy-all}}
• NonCommercial Sampling Plus: the whole work or parts of the work can be copied and modified for non-commercial purposes{{Cite web |date=November 13, 2009 |title=NonCommercial Sampling Plus 1.0 |url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc-sampling+/1.0/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120325110847/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc-sampling+/1.0/ |archive-date=March 25, 2012 |access-date=April 9, 2012 |publisher=Creative Commons |df=mdy-all}}

{{Main|Creative Commons jurisdiction ports}}

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.{{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}}{{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}}{{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}} No new ports have been implemented in version 4.0 of the license.{{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}} Version 4.0 discourages using ported versions and instead acts as a single global license.{{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}}

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".{{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}} Creative Commons suggests the mnemonic "TASL": title – author – source [web link] – [CC] licence.
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]."

{{Main|Creative Commons NonCommercial license}}

The NonCommercial license allows image creators to restrict selling and profiting from their works by other parties and thus maintaining free of charge access to images.

The "non-commercial" option included in some Creative Commons licenses is controversial in definition,{{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}} 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.{{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}} In 2014 Wikimedia Deutschland published a guide to using Creative Commons licenses as wiki pages for translations and as PDF.{{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=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}}

File:Derivative of medical imaging.jpg

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.{{Cite web |title=Frequently Asked Questions |url=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_combine_material_that_uses_different_Creative_Commons_licenses_into_my_work.3F |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325054613/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_combine_material_that_uses_different_Creative_Commons_licenses_into_my_work.3F |archive-date=March 25, 2014 |access-date=March 25, 2014 |work=CC Wiki |df=mdy-all}}

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.{{Cite journal |last=Katz |first=Zachary |year=2005 |title=Pitfalls of Open Licensing: An Analysis of Creative Commons Licensing |journal=IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review |volume=46 |issue=3 |page=391}}

Some works licensed using Creative Commons licenses have been involved in several court cases.{{Cite web |title=Creative Commons Case Law |url=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Law |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110901220753/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Law |archive-date=September 1, 2011 |access-date=August 31, 2011 |df=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.

{{Further|Public information licence}}

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."{{Cite web |title=Creative Commons license upheld by court |url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6052292.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025165735/http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6052292.html |archive-date=October 25, 2012 |access-date=December 24, 2012 |publisher=News.cnet.com |df=mdy-all}}{{Cite book |last=Rimmer |first=Matthew |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1ONyncVruj8C&q=The+Dutch+Court%27s+decision+is+especially+noteworthy+because+it+confirms+that+the+conditions+of+a+Creative+Commons+license+automatically&pg=PA271 |title=Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My Ipod – Matthew Rimmer – Google Böcker |date=January 2007 |publisher=Edward Elgar |isbn=9781847207142 |access-date=December 24, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160414003634/https://books.google.com/books?id=1ONyncVruj8C&pg=PA271&dq=The+Dutch+Court%27s+decision+is+especially+noteworthy+because+it+confirms+that+the+conditions+of+a+Creative+Commons+license+automatically&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=SzKvUMOkJseF4gSp4oEY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20Dutch%20Court%27s%20decision%20is%20especially%20noteworthy%20because%20it%20confirms%20that%20the%20conditions%20of%20a%20Creative%20Commons%20license%20automatically&f=false |archive-date=April 14, 2016 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all}}{{Cite web |date=March 16, 2006 |title=Creative Commons License Upheld by Dutch Court |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060316052623594 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100505060734/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060316052623594 |archive-date=May 5, 2010 |access-date=September 2, 2006 |website=Groklaw}}{{Cite web |date=March 16, 2006 |title=Creative Commons Licenses Enforced in Dutch Court |url=https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5823 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110906074741/http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5823 |archive-date=September 6, 2011 |access-date=August 31, 2011 |df=mdy-all}}

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,{{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}} 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.{{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}}{{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}}

In the fall of 2006, the collecting society {{lang|es|italic=no|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.{{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}}

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:

{{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 'copy left'.{{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}}}}

On June 30, 2010, GateHouse Media filed a lawsuit against That is Great News, LLC. GateHouse Media owns a number of local newspapers, including Rockford Register Star, which is based in Rockford, Illinois. That is Great News makes plaques out of newspaper articles and sells them to the people featured in the articles.{{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 |df=mdy-all}} GateHouse sued That is Great News for copyright infringement and breach of contract. GateHouse claimed that That is Great News violated the non-commercial and no-derivative works restrictions on GateHouse Creative Commons licensed work when they published the material on their website. The case was settled on August 17, 2010, though the terms of the settlement were not made public.{{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}}

In 2007, photographer Art Drauglis uploaded several pictures to the photo-sharing website Flickr, giving them the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License (CC BY-SA). One photo, titled "Swain's Lock, Montgomery Co., MD.", was downloaded by Kappa Map Group, a map-making company, and published in 2012 on the front cover of Montgomery Co. Maryland Street Atlas. The text "Photo: Swain's Lock, Montgomery Co., MD Photographer: Carly Lesser & Art Drauglis, Creative Commoms {{sic}}, CC-BY-SA-2.0" was placed on the back cover, but nothing on the front indicated authorship.

The validity of CC BY-SA 2.0 as a license was not in dispute. CC BY-SA 2.0 requires that the licensee 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."{{Cite web |date=August 18, 2015 |title=Memorandum Opinion |url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_14-cv-01043/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_14-cv-01043-0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160921202242/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_14-cv-01043/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_14-cv-01043-0.pdf |archive-date=September 21, 2016 |access-date=August 29, 2016 |publisher=United States District Court for the District of Columbia |df=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.{{Cite web |last=Guadamuz |first=Andres |date=October 24, 2015 |title=US Court interprets copyleft clause in Creative Commons licenses |url=http://www.technollama.co.uk/us-court-interprets-copyleft-clause-in-creative-commons-licenses |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151222123232/http://www.technollama.co.uk/us-court-interprets-copyleft-clause-in-creative-commons-licenses |archive-date=December 22, 2015 |access-date=10 December 2015 |website=TechnoLlama |df=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 identifier for the license.

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=yes}} (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 was to go to the photographer, with the remainder retained by VGSE.{{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}}{{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}} The Higher Regional Court of Cologne dismissed the claim in May 2019.{{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}}

{{Main|List of major Creative Commons licensed works}}

{{See also|Category:Creative Commons-licensed works}}

File:Stateofthecommons2017-o.svg

Creative Commons maintains a content directory wiki of organizations and projects using Creative Commons licenses.{{Cite web |title=Content Directories |url=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Content_Directories |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090430010815/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Content_Directories |archive-date=April 30, 2009 |access-date=April 24, 2009 |publisher=creativecommons.org |df=mdy-all}} On its website CC also provides case studies of projects using CC licenses across the world.{{Cite web |title=Case Studies |url=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Casestudies |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111224111652/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Casestudies |archive-date=December 24, 2011 |access-date=December 20, 2011 |publisher=Creative Commons |df=mdy-all}} CC licensed content can also be accessed through a number of content directories and search engines.

{{Contains special characters|Uncommon Unicode|section|compact=y}}

After being proposed by Creative Commons in 2017,{{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 }} Creative Commons license symbols were added to Unicode with version 13.0 in 2020.{{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}} The circle with an equal sign (meaning no derivatives) is present in older versions of Unicode, unlike all the other symbols.

These symbols can be used in succession to indicate a particular Creative Commons license, for example, CC-BY-SA (CC-Attribution-ShareAlike) can be expressed with Unicode symbols CIRCLED CC, CIRCLED HUMAN FIGURE and CIRCLED ANTICLOCKWISE ARROW placed next to each other: 🅭🅯🄎

In December{{nbsp}}2020, the Creative Commons organization launched an online database covering licensing case law and legal scholarship.{{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 }}{{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 }}

{{Portal|Free and open-source software|Law}}

• Closed captioning – uses a similar CC logo
• Free-culture movement
• Free music
• Free software
• Non-commercial educational station

{{notelist}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

• {{Official website|https://creativecommons.org}}
• [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Full selection of licenses]
• [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/ CC License options]
• Licenses. Overview of free licenses. freedomdefined.org
• [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Web-friendly formatted summary of CC BY-SA 4.0]

{{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}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Computer law

Category:Copyleft

Category:Free content licenses

Category:Intellectual property activism

Category:Intellectual property law

Category:Public copyright licenses

Category:Articles containing video clips

Category:Copyleft software licenses