Home  ›  Upload All Rights Reserved or Creative Commons

Upload All Rights Reserved or Creative Commons

Written By Wednesday, April 13, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Public copyright license for allowing gratuitous utilize of a work

This commodity is about the Creative Commons licenses. For the organization that produced them, see Artistic Eatables.

This video explains how Artistic Commons licenses tin can be used in conjunction with commercial licensing arrangements

A Artistic Eatables (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work".[notation i] 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 writer flexibility (for case, they might choose to allow but not-commercial uses of a given piece of work) and protects the people who employ or redistribute an author's piece of 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.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

In that location are several types of Creative Commons licenses. Each license differs by several combinations that status the terms of distribution. They were initially released on December 16, 2002, past Creative Commons, a U.South. non-turn a profit corporation founded in 2001. At that place have also been five versions of the suite of licenses, numbered ane.0 through 4.0.[six] Released in November 2013, the 4.0 license suite is the well-nigh current. While the Creative Eatables license was originally grounded in the American legal system, there are at present several Creative Eatables jurisdiction ports which adapt international laws.

In October 2014, the Open Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative Commons CC BY, CC Past-SA and CC0 licenses equally conformant with the "Open up Definition" for content and data.[seven] [8] [nine]

History and international use [edit]

Aaron Swartz and Lawrence Lessig at the 2002 event for the commencement 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 condition. Version 1.0 of the licenses was officially released on sixteen Dec 2002.[10]

Origins [edit]

The CCL allows inventors to keep the rights to their innovations while also allowing for some external use of the invention.[11] The CCL emerged every bit a reaction to the determination in Eldred 5. Ashcroft, in which the U.s.a. Supreme Courtroom ruled constitutional provisions of the Copyright Term Extension Deed that extended the copyright term of works to be the final living author's lifespan plus an boosted 70 years.[11]

License porting [edit]

The original non-localized Creative Eatables licenses were written with the U.S. legal system in mind; therefore, the diction may exist incompatible with local legislation in other jurisdictions, rendering the licenses unenforceable there. To accost this issue, Artistic Commons asked its affiliates to translate the various licenses to reverberate local laws in a process called "porting."[12] As of July 2011, Creative Eatables licenses have been ported to over 50 jurisdictions worldwide.[13]

Chinese use of the Creative Commons license [edit]

Working with Creative Commons, the Chinese government adapted the Artistic Commons License to the Chinese context, replacing the private monetary compensation of U.S. copyright law with incentives to Chinese innovators to introduce equally a social contribution.[14] In China, the resources of guild are thought to enable an individual'due south innovations; the continued betterment of society serves as its own reward.[15] Chinese constabulary heavily prioritizes the eventual contributions that an invention volition have towards social club's growth, resulting in initial laws placing limits on the length of patents and very stringent atmospheric condition regarding the use and qualifications of inventions.[fifteen]

"Info-communism" [edit]

An idea sometimes called "info-communism" found traction in the Western earth after researchers at MIT grew frustrated over having aspects of their code withheld from the public.[16] Modernistic copyright law roots itself in motivating innovation through rewarding innovators for socially valuable inventions. Western patent constabulary assumes that (1) at that place is a right to use an invention for commerce and (2) it is up to the patentee's discretion to limit that right.[17] The MIT researchers, led by Richard Stallman, argued for the more than open proliferation of their software's use for two primary reasons: the moral obligation of altruism and collaboration, and the unfairness of restricting the freedoms of other users by depriving them of non-scarce resources.[16] As a result, they developed the Full general Public License (GPL), a forerunner to the Creative Commons License based on existing American copyright and patent law.[16] The GPL allowed the economy effectually a piece of software to remain capitalist past allowing programmers to commercialize products that use the software, but besides ensured that no single person had complete and sectional rights to the usage of an innovation.[16] Since then, info-communism has gained traction, with some scholars arguing in 2014 that Wikipedia itself is a manifestation of the info-communist movement.[eighteen]

Applicable works [edit]

Work licensed under a Creative Commons license is governed by applicable copyright constabulary.[19] This allows Creative Commons licenses to be applied to all work falling under copyright, including: books, plays, movies, music, articles, photographs, blogs, and websites.

Software [edit]

While software is also governed past copyright police and CC licenses are applicable, the CC recommends confronting using it in software specifically due to backward-compatibility limitations with existing ordinarily used software licenses.[twenty] [21] Instead, developers may resort to utilize more software-friendly free and open-source software software licenses. Outside the FOSS licensing apply 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.[22] Despite the status of CC0 as the well-nigh complimentary copyright license, the Free Software Foundation does not recommend releasing software into the public domain using the CC0.[23]

All the same, application of a Creative Eatables license may not alter the rights allowed past fair use or fair dealing or exert restrictions which violate copyright exceptions.[24] Furthermore, Artistic Commons licenses are non-exclusive and non-revocable.[25] Any piece of work or copies of the work obtained under a Creative Commons license may keep to be used under that license.[26]

In the case of works protected by multiple Artistic Commons licenses, the user may choose either of them.[27]

Preconditions [edit]

The writer, or the licensor in case the writer did a contractual transfer of rights, need to have the exclusive rights on the work. If the piece of work has already been published nether 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 the URL of the original license).[17]

Consequences [edit]

The license is non-sectional and royalty-gratuitous, unrestricted in terms of territory and duration, then 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 atmospheric condition 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 human action upon any copyright infringement. The licensee has a limited menstruation to correct whatsoever non-compliance.[17]

Types of licenses [edit]

CC license usage in 2014 (top and heart), "Gratuitous cultural works" compatible license usage 2010 to 2014 (bottom)

Four rights [edit]

The CC licenses all grant "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted piece of work worldwide for non-commercial purposes and without modification.[28] In addition, unlike versions of license prescribe different rights, as shown in this tabular array:[29]

Icon Right Clarification
Attribution Attribution (Past) Licensees may re-create, distribute, display, perform and make derivative works and remixes based on it simply if they give the author or licensor the credits (attribution) in the way specified past these. Since version ii.0, all Creative Commons licenses require attribution to the creator and include the Past element.
Share-alike Share-alike (SA) Licensees may distribute derivative works but nether a license identical to ("not more restrictive than") the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.) Without share-alike, derivative works might be sublicensed with compatible but more restrictive license clauses, e.g. CC BY to CC BY-NC.)
Non-commercial Non-commercial (NC) Licensees may copy, distribute, brandish, perform the piece of work and make derivative works and remixes based on it only for non-commercial purposes.
Non-derivative No derivative works (ND) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works and remixes based on information technology. Since version 4.0, derivative works are allowed but must not exist shared.

The last ii clauses are not free content licenses, according to definitions such every bit DFSG or the Gratis Software Foundation's standards, and cannot be used in contexts that crave 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.[30]

Mixing and matching these weather produces sixteen possible combinations, of which eleven are valid Creative Commons licenses and five are not. Of the v 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 take been retired because 98% of licensors requested attribution, though they exercise remain available for reference on the website.[31] [32] [33] This leaves six regularly used licenses plus the CC0 public domain declaration.

Six regularly used licenses [edit]

The vi licenses in near frequent use are shown in the post-obit table. Among them, those accustomed past the Wikimedia Foundation – the public domain dedication and two attribution (BY and Past-SA) licenses – allow the sharing and remixing (creating derivative works), including for commercial use, then long as attribution is given.[33] [34] [35]

License name Abbreviation Icon Attribution required Allows remix civilization Allows commercial utilize Allows Free Cultural Works Meets the OKF 'Open up Definition'
Attribution BY CC-BY icon Yes Yeah Yes Yes Aye
Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA CC-BY-SA icon Yes Yes Yep Aye Yes
Attribution-NonCommercial By-NC CC-by-NC icon Yes Yeah No No No
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Past-NC-SA CC-BY-NC-SA icon Yes Aye No No No
Attribution-NoDerivatives BY-ND CC-BY-ND icon Yeah No Yes No No
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives Past-NC-ND CC-BY-NC-ND icon Yes No No No No

Nix / public domain [edit]

CC cipher public domain dedication tool logo.[36]

Creative Commons Public Domain Marking. Indicates works which take already fallen into (or were given to) the public domain.

Tool name Abbreviation Icon Attribution required Allows remix civilisation Allows commercial use Allows Gratis Cultural Works Meets the OKF 'Open up Definition'
"No Rights Reserved" CC0 CC0 icon No Yeah Yes Yes Yes

Likewise copyright licenses, Creative Commons also offers CC0, a tool for relinquishing copyright and releasing material into the public domain.[35] CC0 is a legal tool for waiving as many rights every bit legally possible.[37] Or, when not legally possible, CC0 acts as fallback every bit public domain equivalent license.[37] Development of CC0 began in 2007[38] and information technology was released in 2009.[39] [forty] A major target of the license was the scientific information community.[41]

In 2010, Creative Commons announced its Public Domain Mark,[42] a tool for labeling works already in the public domain. Together, CC0 and the Public Domain Mark replace the Public Domain Dedication and Certification,[43] which took a U.S.-centric approach and co-mingled distinct operations.

In 2011, the Free Software Foundation added CC0 to its gratis software licenses. Still, despite CC0 being the most costless and open copyright license, the Free Software Foundation currently does not recommend using CC0 to release software into the public domain because information technology lacks a patent grant.[23]

In February 2012, CC0 was submitted to Open Source Initiative (OSI) for their approval.[44] Still, controversy arose over its clause which excluded from the telescopic of the license any relevant patents held by the copyright holder. This clause was added with scientific data in mind rather than software, but some members of the OSI believed information technology could weaken users' defenses confronting software patents. As a result, Creative Commons withdrew their submission, and the license is not currently approved by the OSI.[41] [45]

From 2013 to 2017, the stock photography website Unsplash used the CC0 license,[46] [47] distributing several million free photos a month.[48] Lawrence Lessig, the founder of Artistic Commons, has contributed to the site.[49] Unsplash moved from using the CC0 license to their own like license in June 2017, but with a brake added on using the photos to make a competing service which fabricated it incompatible with the CC0 license.[50]

In Oct 2014, the Open up Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative Commons CC0 as conformant with the Open Definition and recommend the license to dedicate content to the public domain.[8] [9]

Retired licenses [edit]

Due to either disuse or criticism, a number of previously offered Artistic Commons licenses accept since been retired,[31] [51] and are no longer recommended for new works. The retired licenses include all licenses lacking the Attribution element other than CC0, every bit well as the following iv licenses:

  • Developing Nations License: a license which only applies to developing countries deemed to be "not-loftier-income economies" by the Globe Bank. Full copyright restrictions apply to people in other countries.[52]
  • Sampling: parts of the work can be used for any purpose other than advertising, just the whole work cannot be copied or modified[53]
  • Sampling Plus: parts of the work can exist copied and modified for whatsoever purpose other than advertisement, and the entire piece of work can be copied for noncommercial purposes[54]
  • NonCommercial Sampling Plus: the whole work or parts of the work tin can be copied and modified for non-commercial purposes[55]

Version iv.0 [edit]

The latest version iv.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.[56] [57] [58] [59] No new ports take been implemented in version 4.0 of the license.[60] Version 4.0 discourages using ported versions and instead acts as a single global license.[61]

Rights and obligations [edit]

Attribution [edit]

Since 2004, all current licenses other than the CC0 variant require attribution of the original writer, every bit signified by the BY component (as in the preposition "by").[32] The attribution must be given to "the all-time of [1'south] ability using the information bachelor".[62] Artistic Eatables suggests the mnemonic "TASL": title -- author -- source [web link] -- [CC] licence.
Generally this implies the post-obit:

  • Include any copyright notices (if applicable). If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed in that location by the copyright holder, those notices must exist left intact, or reproduced in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which the work is beingness re-published.
  • Cite the author's name, screen name, or user ID, etc. If the work is being published on the Cyberspace, it is overnice to link that name to the person's contour page, if such a folio exists.
  • Cite the work's title or name (if applicative), if such a affair exists. If the piece of work is beingness published on the Internet, it is dainty to link the proper name or championship 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 commendation links to the license on the CC website.
  • Mention if the work is a derivative work or adaptation. In addition to the in a higher place, ane needs to identify that their work is a derivative work, e.m., "This is a Finnish translation of [original piece of work] by [writer]." or "Screenplay based on [original piece of work] by [author]."

Non-commercial licenses [edit]

The "not-commercial" selection included in some Creative Commons licenses is controversial in definition,[63] every bit 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.[64] In 2014 Wikimedia Germany published a guide to using Creative Commons licenses as wiki pages for translations and as PDF.[17]

Adaptability [edit]

An example of a permitted combination of ii works, one being CC BY-SA and the other being Public Domain.

Rights in an adaptation can exist 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.[65]

License compatibility nautical chart for combining or mixing two CC licensed works[66] [67]
Public Domain mark icon
CC0 icon 		CC-BY icon CC-BY-SA icon CC-by-NC icon
CC-BY-NC-SA icon 		CC-BY-ND icon
CC-BY-NC-ND icon
Public Domain mark icon
CC0 icon 		Yes Yes Yes Yes No
CC-BY icon Yes Yes Yes Yes No
CC-BY-SA icon Yes Yes Yes No No
CC-by-NC icon
CC-BY-NC-SA icon 		Yes Yes No Yes No
CC-BY-ND icon
CC-BY-NC-ND icon 		No No No No No

Legal aspects [edit]

The legal implications of big numbers of works having Creative Eatables licensing are difficult to predict, and in that location is speculation that media creators oft lack insight to be able to cull the license which all-time meets their intent in applying it.[68]

Some works licensed using Artistic Eatables licenses have been involved in several courtroom cases.[69] Creative Commons itself was non a party to any of these cases; they simply involved licensors or licensees of Artistic Commons licenses. When the cases went as far every bit decisions past 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.

Dutch tabloid [edit]

In early 2006, podcaster Adam Back-scratch sued a Dutch tabloid who published photos from Curry'due south Flickr folio without Curry's permission. The photos were licensed under the Artistic Eatables Non-Commercial license. While the verdict was in favor of Back-scratch, the tabloid avoided having to pay restitution to him equally 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 Courtroom'southward decision is peculiarly noteworthy because it confirms that the weather condition of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed nether it, and binds users of such content fifty-fifty without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of the license."[70] [71] [72] [73]

Virgin Mobile [edit]

In 2007, Virgin Mobile Commonwealth of 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 Eatables-BY (Attribution) license. Users licensing their images this way freed their piece of work for utilize by whatever other entity, equally long equally the original creator was attributed credit, without any other bounty 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-twelvemonth-erstwhile Alison Chang at a fund-raising carwash for her church building,[74] acquired some controversy when she sued Virgin Mobile. The photo was taken by Alison'south church youth counselor, Justin Ho-Wee Wong, who uploaded the image to Flickr under the Creative Commons license.[74] In 2008, the instance (concerning personality rights rather than copyright as such) was thrown out of a Texas court for lack of jurisdiction.[75] [76]

SGAE vs Fernández [edit]

In the fall of 2006, the collecting order 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 Courtroom rejected the collecting society's claims considering the possessor of the bar proved that the music he was using was not managed by the society.[77]

In February 2006, the Cultural Association Ladinamo (based in Madrid, and represented by Javier de la Cueva) was granted the use of copyleft music in their public activities. The sentence said:

Admitting the existence of music equipment, a joint evaluation of the evidence practiced, this court is convinced that the accused 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 information technology is manifested both by the legal representative of the Association and by Manuela Villa Acosta, in accuse of the cultural programming of the association, which is uniform with the alternative character of the Association and its integration in the move called 'copy left'.[78]

GateHouse Media, Inc. five. That'due south Keen News, LLC [edit]

On June 30, 2010 GateHouse Media filed a lawsuit against That's Nifty News. GateHouse Media owns a number of local newspapers, including Rockford Register Star, which is based in Rockford, Illinois. That's Great News makes plaques out of newspaper articles and sells them to the people featured in the articles.[79] GateHouse sued That's Great News for copyright infringement and breach of contract. GateHouse claimed that TGN violated the non-commercial and no-derivative works restrictions on GateHouse Creative Eatables 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.[79] [80]

Drauglis five. Kappa Map Group, LLC [edit]

The plaintiff was photographer Art Drauglis, who uploaded several pictures to the photo-sharing website Flickr using Artistic Eatables Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License (CC BY-SA), including one entitled "Swain's Lock, Montgomery Co., Medico.". The accused was Kappa Map Group, a map-making company, which downloaded the image and used it in a compilation entitled "Montgomery Co. Maryland Street Atlas". Though there was nothing on the encompass that indicated the origin of the moving-picture show, the text "Photo: Fellow's Lock, Montgomery Co., MD Photographer: Carly Lesser & Art Drauglis, Artistic Commoms [sic], CC-By-SA-two.0" appeared at the bottom of the back cover.

The validity of the CC Past-SA 2.0 every bit a license was not in dispute. The CC BY-SA 2.0 requires that the licensee to use nothing less restrictive than the CC BY-SA 2.0 terms. The atlas was sold commercially and not for free reuse by others. The dispute was whether Drauglis' license terms that would utilize to "derivative works" practical to the entire atlas. Drauglis sued the defendants in June 2014 for copyright infringement and license breach, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, amercement, fees, and costs. Drauglis asserted, among other things, that Kappa Map Group "exceeded the scope of the License because defendant did non publish the Atlas nether a license with the same or similar terms as those under which the Photograph was originally licensed."[81] 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, simply rather a collective work. Since the atlas was not a derivative piece of work of the photograph, Kappa Map Group did not need to license the entire atlas under the CC Past-SA 2.0 license. The estimate also determined that the work had been properly attributed.[82]

In particular, the judge adamant that it was sufficient to credit the writer of the photo equally prominently every bit authors of similar authorship (such equally the authors of private maps independent in the book) and that the name "CC-Past-SA-two.0" is sufficiently precise to locate the correct license on the cyberspace and tin can be considered a valid URI of the license.[83]

Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Cyberspace (VGSE) [edit]

In July 2016, German computer mag LinuxUser reported that a German blogger Christoph Langner used ii CC-Past licensed photographs from Berlin photographer Dennis Skley on his private blog Linuxundich. Langner duly mentioned the writer and the license and added a link to the original. Langner was later contacted by the Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Cyberspace (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 impress in the license. Of this sum, €40 goes to the photographer, and the remainder is retained past VGSE.[84] [85] The Higher Regional Court of Köln dismissed the claim in May 2019.[86]

Works with a Creative Eatables license [edit]

Creative Commons maintains a content directory wiki of organizations and projects using Creative Commons licenses.[87] On its website CC likewise provides case studies of projects using CC licenses across the earth.[88] CC licensed content can also exist accessed through a number of content directories and search engines (run into Creative Commons-licensed content directories).

Unicode symbols [edit]

After existence proposed by Creative Commons in 2017,[89] Creative Commons license symbols were added to Unicode with version xiii.0 in 2020.[ninety] The circle with an equal sign (meaning no derivatives) is nowadays in older versions of Unicode, unlike all the other symbols.

Proper name Unicode Decimal UTF-8 Epitome Displayed
Circled Equals

pregnant no derivatives

U+229C ⊜ E2 8A 9C

Cc-nd.svg

⊜
Circled Nil With Slash

significant no rights reserved

U+1F10D 🄍 F0 9F 84 8D

Cc-zero.svg

🄍
Circled Anticlockwise Arrow

meaning share alike

U+1F10E 🄎 F0 9F 84 8E

Cc-sa.svg

🄎
Circled Dollar Sign With Overlaid Backslash

pregnant non commercial

U+1F10F 🄏 F0 9F 84 8F

Cc-nc.svg

🄏
Circled CC

meaning Artistic Commons license

U+1F16D 🅭 F0 9F 85 Advertising

Cc.logo.circle.svg

🅭
Circled C With Overlaid Backslash

meaning public domain

U+1F16E 🅮 F0 9F 85 AE

Cc-public domain mark.svg

🅮
Circled Human Figure

meaning attribution, credit

U+1F16F 🅯 F0 9F 85 AF

Cc-by new.svg

🅯

These symbols tin be used in succession to signal a detail Creative Commons license, for example, CC-BY-SA (CC-Attribution-ShareAlike) can exist expressed with Unicode symbols CIRCLED CC, CIRCLED Man FIGURE and CIRCLED ANTICLOCKWISE Arrow placed adjacent to each other: 🅭🅯🄎

Case law database [edit]

In December2020, the Creative Commons organization launched an online database covering licensing case law and legal scholarship.[91] [92]

See also [edit]

  • Gratuitous civilization movement
  • Gratis music
  • Free software
  • Non-commercial educational

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ A "work" is whatsoever artistic material made by a person. A painting, a graphic, a book, a vocal/lyrics to a song, or a photo of almost anything are all examples of "works".

References [edit]

  1. ^ Shergill, Sanjeet (May 6, 2017). "The teacher's guide to Creative Commons licenses". Open Education Europa. Archived from the original on June 26, 2018. Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  2. ^ "What are Creative Commons licenses?". Wageningen Academy & Research. June 16, 2015. Archived from the original on March fifteen, 2018. Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  3. ^ "Creative Commons licenses". University of Michigan Library. Archived from the original on November 21, 2018. Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  4. ^ "Creative Commons licenses" (PDF). University of Glasgow. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 15, 2018. Retrieved March fifteen, 2018.
  5. ^ "The Artistic Eatables licenses". UNESCO. Archived from the original on March 15, 2018. Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  6. ^ "License Versions - Creative Commons". wiki.creativecommons.org. Archived from the original on June 30, 2017. Retrieved July 4, 2017.
  7. ^ Open Definition 2.one Archived January 27, 2017, at the Wayback Machine on opendefinition.org
  8. ^ a b licenses Archived March i, 2016, at the Wayback Automobile on opendefinition.com
  9. ^ a b Creative Commons four.0 By and Past-SA licenses canonical conformant with the Open up Definition Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine past Timothy Vollmer on creativecommons.org (Dec 27th, 2013)
  10. ^ "Artistic Commons Unveils Machine-Readable Copyright Licenses". Dec 16, 2002. Archived from the original on Dec 22, 2002.
  11. ^ a b "1.1 The Story of Creative Commons | Artistic Commons Certificate for Educators, Academic Librarians and GLAM". certificates.creativecommons.org . Retrieved April 28, 2021.
  12. ^ Murray, Laura J. (2014). Putting intellectual holding in its place : rights discourses, artistic labor, and the everyday. Due south. Tina Piper, Kirsty Robertson. Oxford. ISBN978-0-nineteen-933626-5. OCLC 844373100.
  13. ^ "Worldwide". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on October xv, 2008.
  14. ^ Meng, Bingchun (January 26, 2009). "Articulating a Chinese Commons: An Explorative Study of Creative Commons in China". International Journal of Communication. iii: 16. ISSN 1932-8036.
  15. ^ a b Hsia, Tao-tai; Haun, Kathryn (1973). "Laws of the People's Commonwealth of China on Industrial and Intellectual Property". Law and Policy in International Business. 5 (3).
  16. ^ a b c d "View of Info-communism? Ownership and freedom in the digital economic system | Offset Monday". firstmonday.org . Retrieved April 19, 2021.
  17. ^ a b c d Till Kreutzer (2014). Open Content – A Applied Guide to Using Creative Commons Licenses (PDF). Wikimedia Deutschland e.a. ISBN978-3-940785-57-two. Archived (PDF) from the original on Apr 4, 2015. Retrieved March 23, 2015.
  18. ^ Firer-Blaess, Sylvain; Fuchs, Christian (Feb 1, 2014). "Wikipedia: An Info-Communist Manifesto". Television & New Media. fifteen (2): 87–103. doi:10.1177/1527476412450193. ISSN 1527-4764.
  19. ^ "Creative Commons Legal Lawmaking". Creative Commons. January 9, 2008. Archived from the original on February eleven, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  20. ^ "Creative Commons FAQ: Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?". Wiki.creativecommons.org. July 29, 2013. Archived from the original on November 27, 2010. Retrieved September 20, 2013.
  21. ^ "Non-Software Licenses". Choose a License . Retrieved November thirteen, 2020.
  22. ^ "AssaultCube - License". set on.cubers.internet. Archived from the original on Dec 25, 2010. Retrieved January thirty, 2011. AssaultCube is FREEWARE. [...] The content, code and images of the AssaultCube website and all documentation are licensed under "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
  23. ^ a b "Various Licenses and Comments about Them". GNU Projection. Archived from the original on July 24, 2010. Retrieved Apr 4, 2015.
  24. ^ "Do Artistic Commons licenses affect exceptions and limitations to copyright, such as off-white dealing and fair use?". Often Asked Questions - Creative Commons. Archived from the original on August viii, 2015. Retrieved July 26, 2015.
  25. ^ "What if I alter my mind most using a CC license?". Oftentimes Asked Questions - Creative Eatables. Archived from the original on August eight, 2015. Retrieved July 26, 2015.
  26. ^ "What happens if the writer decides to revoke the CC license to textile I am using?". Frequently Asked Questions - Artistic Eatables. Archived from the original on August 8, 2015. Retrieved July 26, 2015.
  27. ^ "How exercise CC licenses operate?". Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Eatables. Archived from the original on August eight, 2015. Retrieved July 26, 2015.
  28. ^ "Baseline Rights". Creative Eatables. June 12, 2008. Archived from the original on February 8, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  29. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". Artistic Eatables. Artistic Commons Corporation. August 28, 2020. Retrieved Nov 26, 2020.
  30. ^ "Creative Eatables GNU LGPL". Archived from the original on June 22, 2009. Retrieved July 20, 2009.
  31. ^ a b "Retired Legal Tools". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on May 3, 2016. Retrieved May 31, 2012.
  32. ^ a b "Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses". Creativecommons.org. May 25, 2004. Archived from the original on September 21, 2013. Retrieved September 20, 2013.
  33. ^ a b "About The Licenses - Creative Commons". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on July 26, 2015. Retrieved July 26, 2015.
  34. ^ "Creative Eatables — Attribution 3.0 Us". Artistic Commons. November sixteen, 2009. Archived from the original on February 24, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  35. ^ a b "CC0". Artistic Eatables. Archived from the original on Feb 26, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  36. ^ "Downloads". Creative Commons. December 16, 2015. Archived from the original on December 25, 2015. Retrieved Dec 24, 2015.
  37. ^ a b Dr. Till Kreutzer. "Validity of the Creative Eatables Nothing 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication and its usability for bibliographic metadata from the perspective of German Copyright Law" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 25, 2017. Retrieved July iv, 2017.
  38. ^ "Creative Commons Launches CC0 and CC+ Programs" (Press release). Artistic Commons. December 17, 2007. Archived from the original on February 23, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  39. ^ Bakery, Gavin (January 16, 2009). "Written report from CC board meeting". Open Access News. Archived from the original on September 19, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  40. ^ "Expanding the Public Domain: Part Zero". Creativecommons.org. March 11, 2009. Archived from the original on September 21, 2013. Retrieved September twenty, 2013.
  41. ^ a b Christopher Allan Webber. "CC withdrawl [sic] of CC0 from OSI procedure". In the Open up Source Initiative Licence review mailing list. Archived from the original on September half-dozen, 2015. Retrieved February 24, 2012.
  42. ^ "Marking and Tagging the Public Domain: An Invitation to Comment". Creativecommons.org. August 10, 2010. Archived from the original on September 21, 2013. Retrieved September xx, 2013.
  43. ^ "Copyright-Only Dedication (based on The states law) or Public Domain Certification". Creative Commons. August 20, 2009. Archived from the original on Feb 23, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  44. ^ Carl Boettiger. "OSI recognition for Artistic Eatables Zippo License?". In the Open Source Initiative Licence review mailing list. opensource.org. Archived from the original on September 26, 2013. Retrieved February 1, 2012.
  45. ^ The Open Source Initiative FAQ. "What well-nigh the Artistic Commons "CC0" ("CC Nothing") public domain dedication? Is that Open Source?". opensource.org. Archived from the original on May 19, 2013. Retrieved May 25, 2013.
  46. ^ "Unsplash is a site full of gratis images for your side by side splash page". The Next Web. August 14, 2013. Archived from the original on Nov 17, 2015. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
  47. ^ "License | Unsplash". unsplash.com. Archived from the original on November 17, 2015. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
  48. ^ "Why Building Something Useful For Others Is The Best Marketing There Is". Fast Company. February 18, 2015. Archived from the original on November 14, 2015. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
  49. ^ "Lawrence Lessig | Unsplash Volume". book.unsplash.com. Archived from the original on Nov 17, 2015. Retrieved November thirteen, 2015.
  50. ^ "Community update: Unsplash branded license and ToS changes". June 22, 2017. Archived from the original on January seven, 2018. Retrieved January 7, 2018.
  51. ^ Lessig, Lawrence (June 4, 2007). "Retiring standalone DevNations and ane Sampling license". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on July vii, 2007. Retrieved July five, 2007.
  52. ^ "Developing Nations License". Artistic Eatables. Archived from the original on Apr 12, 2012. Retrieved April 9, 2012.
  53. ^ "Sampling 1.0". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on March 16, 2012. Retrieved April 9, 2012.
  54. ^ "Sampling Plus 1.0". Creative Eatables. November 13, 2009. Archived from the original on April 11, 2012. Retrieved Apr 9, 2012.
  55. ^ "NonCommercial Sampling Plus one.0". Creative Commons. Nov 13, 2009. Archived from the original on March 25, 2012. Retrieved Apr ix, 2012.
  56. ^ Peters, Diane (Nov 25, 2013). "CC's Next Generation Licenses — Welcome Version 4.0!". Artistic Commons. Archived from the original on November 26, 2013. Retrieved November 26, 2013.
  57. ^ "What's new in 4.0?". Artistic Eatables. 2013. Archived from the original on November 29, 2013. Retrieved November 26, 2013.
  58. ^ "CC four.0, an end to porting Artistic Eatables licences?". TechnoLlama. September 25, 2011. Archived from the original on September ii, 2013. Retrieved August xi, 2013.
  59. ^ Doug Whitfield (August v, 2013). "Music Manumit Lawcast with Jessica Coates of Creative Commons". YouTube. Archived from the original on August xiv, 2013. Retrieved Baronial 11, 2013.
  60. ^ "CC Affiliate Network". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on July ix, 2011. Retrieved July 8, 2011.
  61. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions: What if CC licenses have not been ported to my jurisdiction?". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on November 27, 2013. Retrieved November 26, 2013.
  62. ^ "Oftentimes Frequently Asked Questions". Creative Commons. February 2, 2010. Archived from the original on Feb 26, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  63. ^ "Defining Noncommercial written report published". Creativecommons.org. September 14, 2009. Archived from the original on September 21, 2013. Retrieved September 20, 2013.
  64. ^ "The Instance for Free Employ: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License". Freedomdefined.org. August 26, 2013. Archived from the original on June 25, 2012. Retrieved September 20, 2013.
  65. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". CC Wiki. Archived from the original on March 25, 2014. Retrieved March 25, 2014.
  66. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". Creative Commons. July 14, 2016. Archived from the original on November 27, 2010. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  67. ^ Creative Commons licenses without a non-commercial or no-derivatives requirement, including public domain/CC0, are all cross-compatible. Not-commercial licenses are compatible with each other and with less restrictive licenses, except for Attribution-ShareAlike. No-derivatives licenses are not uniform with any license, including themselves.
  68. ^ Katz, Zachary (2005). "Pitfalls of Open up Licensing: An Analysis of Creative Commons Licensing". Thought: The Intellectual Property Law Review. 46 (3): 391.
  69. ^ "Artistic Commons Case Law". Archived from the original on September i, 2011. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
  70. ^ "Creative Commons license upheld by court". News.cnet.com. Archived from the original on October 25, 2012. Retrieved December 24, 2012.
  71. ^ Rimmer, Matthew (January 2007). Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Easily Off My Ipod - Matthew Rimmer - Google Böcker. ISBN9781847207142. Archived from the original on Apr 14, 2016. Retrieved December 24, 2012.
  72. ^ "Artistic Commons License Upheld by Dutch Courtroom". Groklaw. March xvi, 2006. Archived from the original on May five, 2010. Retrieved September 2, 2006.
  73. ^ "Artistic Commons Licenses Enforced in Dutch Courtroom". March xvi, 2006. Archived from the original on September 6, 2011. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
  74. ^ a b Cohen, Noam. "Utilise My Photo? Not Without Permission". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 15, 2011. Retrieved September 25, 2007. One moment, Alison Chang, a 15-twelvemonth-onetime student from Dallas, is cheerfully goofing around at a local church building-sponsored motorcar wash, posing with a friend for a photo. Weeks later on, that photo is posted online and catches the eye of an advertising agency in Australia, and the altered prototype of Alison appears on a billboard in Adelaide as part of a Virgin Mobile advertising campaign.
  75. ^ Evan Dark-brown (January 22, 2009). "No personal jurisdiction over Australian defendant in Flickr correct of publicity case". Internet Cases, a blog about law and technology. Archived from the original on July 13, 2011. Retrieved September 25, 2010.
  76. ^ "Lawsuit Against Virgin Mobile and Creative Commons – FAQ". September 27, 2007. Archived from the original on September 7, 2011. Retrieved Baronial 31, 2011.
  77. ^ Mia Garlick (March 23, 2006). "Spanish Court Recognizes CC-Music". Artistic Commons. Archived from the original on August 9, 2010. Retrieved September 25, 2010.
  78. ^ "Sentencia nº 12/2006 Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 5 de Madrid | Derecho de Net" (in Spanish). Derecho-net.org. Archived from the original on November 26, 2015. Retrieved Dec 24, 2015.
  79. ^ CMLP Staff (August 5, 2010). "GateHouse Media v. That's Bang-up News". Denizen Media Police force Project. Archived from the original on May 2, 2012. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
  80. ^ "Memorandum Opinion" (PDF). Usa District Court for the District of Columbia. August eighteen, 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 21, 2016. Retrieved August 29, 2016.
  81. ^ Guadamuz, Andres (October 24, 2015). "U.s. Courtroom interprets copyleft clause in Creative Eatables licenses". TechnoLlama. Archived from the original on Dec 22, 2015. Retrieved December 10, 2015.
  82. ^ Michael W. Carroll. "Carrollogos: U.S. Court Correctly Interprets Artistic Commons Licenses". Archived from the original on October 2, 2017. Retrieved October ii, 2017.
  83. ^ Luther, Jörg (July 2016). "Kleingedrucktes — Editorial" [Fine print — Editorial]. LinuxUser (in German) (vii/2016). ISSN 1615-4444. Archived from the original on September fifteen, 2016. Retrieved September ix, 2016.
  84. ^ Meet also: "Abmahnung des Verbandes zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Net (VSGE)" [Observe from the Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Internet (VSGE)] (in German). Hannover, Germany: Feil Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft. January 8, 2014. Archived from the original on September 14, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
  85. ^ "Creative Commons-Foto-Abmahnung: Rasch Rechtsanwälte setzen erfolgreich Gegenansprüche durch" [Creative Commons photo notice: Rasch attorneys successfully enforce counterclaims]. anwalt.de (in German language). May 22, 2019. Archived from the original on Dec 19, 2019. Retrieved Dec 18, 2019.
  86. ^ "Content Directories". creativecommons.org. Archived from the original on April 30, 2009. Retrieved April 24, 2009.
  87. ^ "Case Studies". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on December 24, 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  88. ^ "Proposal to add CC license symbols to UCS" (PDF). Unicode. July 24, 2017. Retrieved August 21, 2020.
  89. ^ Steuer, Eric (March 18, 2020). "The Unicode Standard Now Includes CC License Symbols". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on July 27, 2020. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  90. ^ Salazar, Krystle (December 3, 2020). "Explore the new CC legal database site!". Creative Commons. Mountain View, California, USA. Retrieved January 3, 2021.
  91. ^ Creative Commons. "Creative Commons Legal Database". Creative Eatables. Mount View, California, USA. Retrieved Jan 3, 2021.

External links [edit]

  • Official website
  • Total selection of licenses
  • Licenses. Overview of free licenses. freedomdefined.org
  • WHAT IS Creative COMMONS LICENSE. – THE Consummate DEFINITIVE GUIDE
  • Spider web-friendly formatted summary of CC BY-SA 3.0

grishamjudy1997.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license

Related Posts

0 Response to "Upload All Rights Reserved or Creative Commons"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel