What are /r/creativecommons' favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

You may not realize that the NC clause makes it non-free and is effectively the anti-Wikipedia clause etc. see https://creativecommons.org/freeworks

In 95% of cases, nobody was going to do anything commercial anyway, so the sole effect of NC is that my music (which is truly free under CC-BY-SA) cannot be mixed with yours because of your extra restriction that causes incompatibility.

Oh I see. Yes that's correct in the sense they mean it. Here's a list of compatible licenses -

https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses/

To answer your original question, no it has nothing to do with license compatibility (particularly GPL compatibility). As I say, the licenses have worked like that since version 2.0 .

This might make a good FAQ. The closest the current FAQ comes is -

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_combine_material_under_different_Creative_Commons_licenses_in_my_work.3F

There's not really any substitute for reading https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a and doing your best to follow the condition in a manner that's reasonable for your application.

I've not used them so don't know how they do it, but the official Wikimedia mobile apps might be good examples to follow. I'd bet that they link in-app to Wikimedia Commons pages that contain all of the relevant info for an image or video, i.e., "a resource that includes the required information" per the license condition cited above.

Again, to my understanding (IANAL), you can't re-license even a CC-BY work. So the original license still applies to the original creators copyrighted content. What you are allowed to do without a SA-clause, however, is license your own copyrighted additions/edits in any way you want as opposed to CC-BY-(NC)-SA.

This would mean that your remix is still partially under CC-BY and you aren't allowed to put DRM on those parts.

The anti-DRM-clause seems to generally be poorly known, and it is possible even the original author doesn't know or care about it. You would need to ask to be on the safe side though.

I'd also like to ask that you give back and license your remix under a CC-license (preferrably a free one) even if you don't have to. It won't affect your right to sell it on Spotify or elsewhere.

No, it's not allowed and you should worry. Anything with an NC clause cannot be used at all in something commercial aside from what is "fair use" under copyright law or via a separate agreement with the copyright holder.

NC is a crappy license that most people use because they either think it will stop big bad corporate exploitation or because they think it will make them more money. It usually does neither of those things (corporations weren't going to use your thing anyway, and simple CC-BY-SA would stop the worst exploitation in most cases; and nobody was going to pay you anyway, but if they would they might still do so without the NC issue). In most cases, the only effect it has is to hurt the commons and stop people from using things in perfectly fine ways.

http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC for more details.

Note that CC themselves acknowledge that NC and ND are "non-free" licenses that are incompatible with the actual commons of CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. See https://creativecommons.org/choose/

Some songs are really hard to find links for after the fact, It was a few years in before I started tracking things more accurately on this level. So much of this grew organically over the years and was never planned. So I didn't start building my db of links until later.

There is one song by Fudge - "Gone Bad" that I cannot find again.

Best suggestion I can give for tracks I don't have links for is they are most likely from jamendo.com, bandcamp, or freemusicarchive.org. They are easily the 3 biggest sources I have used over the years to find music.

As far as FOUR - Youth https://www.jamendo.com/track/1243203/youth

I have another spreadsheet that all my links source from. But it doesn't have the votes tied to them. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b-t6mGEEDZiTyFjAXqo8nAV6-JwiTbFO04Rx0oYnasc/edit#gid=0

Huitsi is right, the licences are irrevocable as it would be very difficult to enforce a licence change on any and all downstream users relying on the licence. The Creative Commons FAQs provide additional information: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-if-i-change-my-mind-about-using-a-cc-license.

From the CC FAQs: 'We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative.'

The rest of the answer provides more details on why CC doesn't recommend CC licences for code. https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software.

To start you off, via the CC FAQ

> What are publicity, personality, and privacy rights?

> These terms are used differently in different jurisdictions. Generally speaking, these rights allow individuals to control the use of their voice, image, likeness, or other identifiable aspect of their identity, especially for purposes of commercial exploitation. Similarly, in some jurisdictions these rights allow people to restrict others' ability to publish information about them without their permission. Whether and to what extent these rights exist, and if so, how they are labeled, varies depending on the jurisdiction.

> Creative Commons licenses have a limited effect on these rights where the licensor holds them. Where the licensor has publicity, personality, or privacy rights that may affect your ability to use the material as the license intends, the licensor agrees to waive or not assert those rights. However, any such rights not held by the licensor are not affected and may still affect your desired use of a licensed work. If you have created a work or wish to use a work that might in some way implicate these rights, you may need to obtain permission from the individuals whose rights may be affected.

The important thing is that people know what license the work is under and who to attribute. I'd probably put something like >Copyright (c) 2018 IncarnadineComix. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons X Y Z License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/X/Y/

at the bottom of the image. This would make it easy to distribute compliantly, since everything necessary is contained within the image. Alternatively you could put something similar in a comment on Reddit and the description on Imgur.

See CC's FAQ.

The definition is intentionally vague and they're careful not to make it any less vague. "Not selling" is definitely not enough though.

Personally I just stay away form any non-free licenses.

1) The "easiest" solution is to put a CC license & icon on those pages only. You can probably automate this easily.

2) The license itself should be sufficient. If you use the CC-BY-SA license, people who then share that work are required by the terms of the license to link back to the place where they found the original work, cf. Section 3(A)(1)(a)(5).

Creative Commoners tend to be pretty generouse by nature, so this should be a non-issue. If you want to emphasize the point for those who are a little less skilled in the ways of CC, just put a short note on your encyclopedia pages that it would be really swell if the sharers would remember to link back to your page of choice.

Hope this helps!

According to CC's FAQ page, you can provide attribution in "any reasonable manner," so I suppose a verbal credit would be acceptable.

Keep in mind that the license URL is one of the pieces of information you have to include, so be ready for that.

The wording in the 4.0 version is clearer and more explicit about this than the 3.0 version. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode Including "For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." So if they want 3 links in 30 pt comic sans, you only need to provide a url leading to the 2 paragraphs of 30 pt text plus links in Comic Sans.

FROM THE CC FAQ:

https://creativecommons.org/faq/

Business models

Can I apply a CC license to low-resolution copies of a licensed work and reserve more rights in high-resolution copies?

You may license your copyright or distribute your work under more than one set of terms. For example, you may publish a photograph on your website, but only distribute high-resolution copies to people who have paid for access. This is a practice CC supports. However, if the low-resolution and high-resolution copies are the same work under applicable copyright law, permission under a CC license is not limited to a particular copy, and someone who receives a copy in high resolution may use it under the terms of the CC license applied to the low-resolution copy.

Note that, although CC strongly discourages the practice, CC cannot prevent licensors from attempting to impose restrictions through separate agreements on uses the license otherwise would allow. In that case, licensees may be contractually restricted from using the high-resolution copy, for example, even if the licensor has placed a CC license on the low-resolution copy.

For anyone coming across this later, below is the definition of NonCommercial located at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode:

"NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange."

First, I don't know what language you speak, but the Creative Commons site provides many translations of the licenses, for example: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de

And: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.ja

Look at the bottom of the license page for links to all the different languages offered.

Second, the answer to your question:

Yes, you may redistribute CC BY-NC-ND videos through your site. But you may not alter them in any way. You must redistribute the video as you found it, without adding anything (like a logo) or taking anything away (like the soundtrack). ND means you may not make a derivative work, which you would do by making a change to the video in some way.

So, go ahead and redistribute them, just don't do anything to change them. Is that clear enough? :D

Hmmm, very interesting!

If you don't mind, you really piqued my curiosity, so a few honest questions:

Are you familiar with The Noun Project? They curate vector graphics icons. They apply the CC BY license to the icons if you want to download them free-of-charge. If you pay, then you get the icons under CC 0. You can pay for the icons ala carte, or even use a pre-paid account. I think the fact that you have to pay to get CC 0 will reduce some "misuse"?

> Additionally, some artists used the music for songs, published them and added a YouTube Network Copyright etc. on it, so that no further user can use it anymore without getting strikes.

That sounds like something CC BY-SA will solve?

Also, what specific cases of creating another competing service have you seen? I'd think you will have a big first-mover advantage.

Again, I'm not criticizing your work, it's cool! I'm just genuinely curious and I'm trying to think through all of this.

First of all, obligatory statement that IANAL!

Based on the screenshot you provided, the song you used ("Hot Boxing The Cockpit") is released under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. This means that derivative works (i.e. your video) has to be non-commercial and be released under the same license.

The Standard YouTube License is not CC BY-NC-SA, so you would be violating the song's license by using the Standard YouTube License.

If you release your video under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 then you would be fine. However, I don't know if YouTube has a mechanism for you to choose that license for your video. If not, who knows maybe Vimeo or another site such as a Peertube instance would let you do that.

TL;DR: To answer the question in your title: No, they are not compatible.

P.S. FWIW I see people choosing CC BY for their YouTube videos (which YouTube prompts for when you upload a video), then indicate in their video description which CC license they actually want, such as CC BY-SA. Don't forget there are six CC licenses to choose from.

I can't find any mention of a CC license anywhere. How does anyone know it's CC-licensed?

If you made this song, you should change the YouTube video's license to the Creative Commons Attribution option, or add a statement to the project notes of the LMMS project file. (Make sure to include the full name of the license and a link.)

EDIT: By the way, you should check out /r/ccmusic and the LMMS Sharing Platform.