Editing Creative Commons (section)

==Evolution of CC licenses==
All current CC licenses (except the CC0 Public Domain Dedication tool) require attribution (attributing the authors of the original creative works), which can be inconvenient for works based on multiple other works.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/03/04/the-limits-of-attribution/|title=The Limits of Attribution|last=Paley|first=Nina|author-link=Nina Paley|date=March 4, 2010|work=Nina Paley's Blog|access-date=January 30, 2013|archive-date=September 1, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110901092654/http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/03/04/the-limits-of-attribution/|url-status=live}}</ref> Critics feared that Creative Commons could erode the copyright system over time,<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1838244,00.asp|title=Creative Commons Humbug|last=Dvorak|first=John|magazine=PC Magazine|date=July 2005|access-date=August 26, 2017|archive-date=July 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170718053446/https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1838244,00.asp|url-status=live}}</ref> or allow "some of our most precious resources – the creativity of individuals – to be simply tossed into the commons to be exploited by whomever has spare time and a magic marker."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://practicum.brooklaw.edu/sites/default/files/print/pdfs/journals/journal-law-and-policy/volume-17/issue-1/jlp_v17i_7.pdf|title=Note and Comment: Contemporary Issues in the Visual Art Realm: How Useful are Creative Commons Licenses?|last=Schaeffer|first=Maritza|publisher=Journal of Law and Policy|year=2009|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160204120332/http://practicum.brooklaw.edu/sites/default/files/print/pdfs/journals/journal-law-and-policy/volume-17/issue-1/jlp_v17i_7.pdf|archive-date=February 4, 2016|access-date=October 20, 2015}}</ref>

Critics also worried that the lack of rewards for content producers would dissuade artists from publishing their work, and questioned whether Creative Commons would enable the [[commons]] that it aimed to create.<ref name="Niva Elkin-Koren">{{cite journal|last=Elkin-Koren|first=Niva|title=Exploring Creative Commons: A Skeptical View of a Worthy Pursuit|editor1-last=Hugenholtz|editor1-first=P. Bernt|editor2-last=Guibault|editor2-first=Lucie|journal=The Future of the Public Domain|publisher=Kluwer Law International|ssrn=885466|year=2006}}</ref>

Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig countered that copyright laws have not always offered the strong and seemingly indefinite protection that today's law provides. Rather, the duration of copyright used to be limited to much shorter terms of years, and some works never gained protection because they did not follow the now-abandoned compulsory format.<ref name="Lawrence Lessig, The Creative Commons">{{cite journal|url=https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/mlr/vol65/iss1/1/|title=The Creative Commons|last=Lessig|first=Lawrence|journal=Montana Law Review|year=2004|publisher=65 Mont. L. Rev. 1|volume=65|issue=1|access-date=December 20, 2019|archive-date=December 20, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191220233538/https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/mlr/vol65/iss1/1/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The maintainers of [[Debian]], a [[Linux distribution]] known for its strict adherence to a particular definition of [[software freedom]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.debian.org/social_contract|title=Debian Social Contract|publisher=Debian|date=April 26, 2004|access-date=November 26, 2013|archive-date=April 17, 1999|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19990417230433/http://www.debian.org/social_contract|url-status=live}}</ref> rejected the Creative Commons Attribution License prior to version 3 as incompatible with the [[Debian Free Software Guidelines]] (DFSG) due to the license's anti-[[Digital rights management|DRM]] provisions (which might, due to ambiguity, be covering more than DRM) and its requirement that downstream users remove an author's credit upon request from the author.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://evan.prodromou.name/ccsummary/ccsummary.html|title=Summary of Creative Commons 2.0 Licenses|last=Prodromou|first=Evan|publisher=debian-legal (mailing list)|date=April 3, 2005|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060519162310/http://evan.prodromou.name/ccsummary/ccsummary.html|archive-date=May 19, 2006}}</ref> Version 3.0 of the Creative Commons licenses addressed these concerns and,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249|title=Version 3.0 Launched|last=Garlick|first=Mia|publisher=Creative Commons|date=February 23, 2007|access-date=July 5, 2007|archive-date=July 3, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070703004853/http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249|url-status=live}}</ref> except for the non commercial and no-derivative variants, are considered to be compatible with the DFSG.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#CreativeCommonsShare-Alike.28CC-SA.29v3.0|title=The DFSG and Software Licenses – Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA) v3.0|publisher=Debian Wiki|access-date=March 16, 2009|archive-date=April 27, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200427021039/https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#CreativeCommonsShare-Alike.28CC-SA.29v3.0|url-status=live}}</ref>

Kent Anderson, writing for [[The Scholarly Kitchen]], a blog of the [[Society for Scholarly Publishing]], criticized CC as being grounded on copyright principles and not really departing from it, and as being more complex and complicating than the latter – thus the public does not scrutinize CC, reflexively accepting it as one would a [[EULA|software license]] – while at the same time weakening the rights provided by copyright. Anderson ends up concluding that this is the point, and that "Creative Commons receives significant funding from large information companies like [[Google]], [[Nature Publishing Group]], and [[RedHat]]", and that Google money is especially linked to CC's history; for him, CC is "an organization designed to promulgate the interests of technology companies and Silicon Valley generally".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/04/02/does-creative-commons-make-sense/|title=Does Creative Commons Make Sense?|last=Anderson|first=Kent|date=April 2, 2014|website=The Scholarly Kitchen|publisher=[[Society for Scholarly Publishing]]|access-date=December 21, 2017|archive-date=December 22, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171222052655/https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/04/02/does-creative-commons-make-sense/|url-status=live}}</ref>

===CC license proliferation===
According to [[Mako Hill]], Creative Commons has established a range of licenses tailored to meet the different protection interests of authors of creative works, rather than forcing a single forced standard as a "base level of freedom" that all Creative Commons licenses must meet, and with which all licensors and users must comply. "By failing to take any firm ethical position and draw any line in the sand, CC is a missed opportunity. ...CC has replaced what could have been a call for a world where 'essential rights are unreservable' with the relatively hollow call for 'some rights reserved.{{' "}} He also argued that Creative Commons enables [[license proliferation]], by providing multiple licenses that are [[license compatibility|incompatible]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html|title=Towards a Standard of Freedom: Creative Commons and the Free Software Movement|last=Hill|first=Benjamin Mako|date=July 29, 2005|access-date=October 14, 2005|archive-date=June 15, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615143208/http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Creative Commons website states, "Since each of the six CC licenses functions differently, resources placed under different licenses may not necessarily be combined with one another without violating the license terms."<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/cclearn-explanations-cc-license-compatability.pdf|title=Remixing OER: A guide to License Compatibility|journal=CC Learn Explanations|publisher=Creative Commons|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091025045901/http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/cclearn-explanations-cc-license-compatability.pdf|archive-date=October 25, 2009|access-date=November 29, 2010}}</ref> Works licensed under incompatible licenses may not be recombined in a [[derivative work]] without obtaining permission from the copyright owner.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_combine_two_different_Creative_Commons_licensed_works.3F_Can_I_combine_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work_with_another_non-CC_licensed_work.3F|title=Can I combine two different Creative Commons licensed works? Can I combine a Creative Commons licensed work with another non-CC licensed work?|work=FAQ|publisher=Creative Commons|access-date=September 16, 2009|archive-date=November 27, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101127205528/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_combine_two_different_Creative_Commons_licensed_works.3F_Can_I_combine_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work_with_another_non-CC_licensed_work.3F|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/|title=Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Unported|publisher=Creative Commons|access-date=November 18, 2009|archive-date=February 22, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110222170930/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/|title=Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 3.0 Unported|publisher=Creative Commons|access-date=November 18, 2009|archive-date=February 15, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180215173358/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Richard Stallman]] of the [[Free Software Foundation]] stated in 2005 that he could not support Creative Commons as an activity because "it adopted some additional licenses which do not give everyone that minimum freedom", that freedom being "the freedom to share, noncommercially, any published work".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/entry-20050920.html|title=Fireworks in Montreal|last=Stallman|first=Richard M.|publisher=FSF Blogs|access-date=November 18, 2009|archive-date=May 13, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100513073049/http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/entry-20050920.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Those licenses have since been retired by Creative Commons.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses|title=Retired Legal Tools|publisher=Creative Commons|access-date=April 26, 2021|archive-date=November 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171114000153/https://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses|url-status=live}}</ref>

===License uses===
[[File:CC guidant les contributeurs.jpg|thumb|''Creative Commons guiding the contributors''. This image is a derivative work of ''[[Liberty Leading the People]]'' by [[Eugène Delacroix]].]]

Creative Commons is only a service provider for standardized license text, not a party in any agreement. No central database of Creative Commons works is controlling all licensed works and the responsibility of the Creative Commons system rests entirely with those using the licences.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Frequently Asked Questions – Creative Commons|url=https://creativecommons.org/faq/|access-date=2020-09-06|website=creativecommons.org|archive-date=November 27, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101127205528/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hagedorn|first1=Gregor|last2=Mietchen|first2=Daniel|last3=Morris|first3=Robert|last4=Agosti|first4=Donat|last5=Penev|first5=Lyubomir|last6=Berendsohn|first6=Walter|last7=Hobern|first7=Donald|date=2011-11-28|title=Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information|url=http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=3036|journal=ZooKeys|issue=150|pages=127–149|doi=10.3897/zookeys.150.2189|issn=1313-2970|pmc=3234435|pmid=22207810|doi-access=free|bibcode=2011ZooK..150..127H |access-date=September 6, 2020|archive-date=December 14, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201214035143/https://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=3036|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | last = Delgado | first = Águeda | title = Creative Commons. Licenses for the open diffusion of the science | website = Creative Commons. Licenses for the open diffusion of the science | doi = 10.3916/school-of-authors-079 | doi-broken-date = November 1, 2024 | url = https://www.revistacomunicar.com/wp/school-of-authors/creative-commons-licenses-for-the-open-diffusion-of-the-science/ | access-date = September 7, 2020 | archive-date = August 9, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200809060341/https://www.revistacomunicar.com/wp/school-of-authors/creative-commons-licenses-for-the-open-diffusion-of-the-science/ | url-status = live | url-access = subscription }}</ref> This situation is, however, not specific to Creative Commons. All copyright owners must individually defend their rights and no central database of copyrighted works or existing license agreements exists. The [[United States Copyright Office]] does keep a database of all works registered with it, but absence of registration does not imply absence of copyright, and CC licensed works can be registered on the same terms as unlicensed works or works licensed under any other licences.

Although Creative Commons offers multiple licenses for different uses, some critics suggested that the licenses still do not address the differences among the media or among the various concerns that different authors have.<ref name="Niva Elkin-Koren" />

Lessig wrote that the point of Creative Commons is to provide a middle ground between two extreme views of copyright protection – one demanding that all rights be controlled, and the other arguing that none should be controlled. Creative Commons provides a third option that allows authors to pick and choose which rights they want to control and which they want to grant to others. The multitude of licenses reflects the multitude of rights that can be passed on to subsequent creators.<ref name="Lawrence Lessig, The Creative Commons" />

===<span class="anchor" id="Criticism of the non-commercial license"></span>Non-commercial use licenses===
[[File:Defining noncommercial Creative Commons 2009.pdf|thumb|"Defining 'Noncommercial{{' "}}, a 2009 report from Creative Commons on the concept of noncommercial media]]
{{main|Creative Commons NonCommercial license}}
Various commentators have reported confusion in understanding what "noncommercial" use means. Creative Commons issued a report in 2009, "Defining noncommercial", which presented research and various perspectives. The report claimed that noncommercial to many people means "no exchange of money or any commerce". Beyond that simple statement, many people disagree on whether noncommercial use permits publishing on websites supported with advertising, sharing noncommercial media through nonprofit publishing for a fee, and many other practices in contemporary media distribution. Creative Commons has not sought to resolve the confusion, in part because of high consumer demand for the noncommercial license as is with its ambiguity.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kim|first=Minjeong|date= October 2007 |title=The Creative Commons and Copyright Protection in the Digital Era: Uses of Creative Commons Licenses |journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication|volume=13|issue=1|pages=187–209|doi=10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00392.x|issn=1083-6101|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Licenses - Creative Commons|url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/|access-date=2020-09-06|website=creativecommons.org|archive-date=July 26, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150726003931/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Personality rights===
In 2007, [[Virgin Mobile Australia]] launched a bus stop advertising campaign which promoted its mobile phone text messaging service using the work of amateur photographers who uploaded their work to the photo-sharing site [[Flickr]] using a [[Creative Commons Attribution 2.5|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 being 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 depicted 15-year-old Alison Chang posing for a photo at her church's fund-raising carwash, with the superimposed, mocking slogan "Dump Your Pen Friend".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.out-law.com/page-8494|title=Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's use of Flickr girl blames Creative Commons|work=Out-law.com|date=September 25, 2007|access-date=May 23, 2013|archive-date=October 4, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004112607/http://www.out-law.com/page-8494|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="permission">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html|title=Use My Photo? Not Without Permission|last=Cohen|first=Noam|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=October 1, 2007|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.|access-date=July 24, 2013|archive-date=June 15, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110615133400/https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html|url-status=live|url-access=limited}}</ref> Chang sued Virgin Mobile and Creative Commons. The photo was taken by Chang's church youth counsellor, Justin Ho-Wee Wong, who uploaded the image to Flickr under the Creative Commons license.<ref name="permission" />

{{quote|The case hinges on privacy, the right of people not to have their likeness used in an ad without permission. So, while Mr. Wong may have given away his rights as a photographer, he did not, and could not, give away Alison's [[Personality rights|rights]]. In the lawsuit, which Mr. Wong is also a party to, there is an argument that Virgin did not honor all the terms of the nonrestrictive license.<ref name="permission" />}}

On November 27, 2007, Chang voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit against Creative Commons, focusing the lawsuit only against Virgin Mobile.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/140189/lawsuit_against_creative_commons_dropped.html|title=Lawsuit Against Creative Commons Dropped|last=Gross|first=Grant|work=[[PC World]]|date=December 1, 2007|access-date=May 25, 2008|archive-date=May 31, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100531001410/http://www.pcworld.com/article/140189/lawsuit_against_creative_commons_dropped.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> The case was thrown out of court due to lack of jurisdiction and subsequently Virgin Mobile did not incur any damages towards the plaintiff.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna50261013|title=Use Photos in Advertisements? Take These Steps to Avoid a Lawsuit|last=LaVine|first=Lindsay|newspaper=[[NBC News]]|date=December 20, 2012|access-date=July 24, 2013|archive-date=April 3, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150403104830/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50261013/ns/business-small_business/t/use-photos-advertisements-take-these-steps-avoid-lawsuit/|url-status=live}}</ref>