Hairy Larry's Blog - Delta Boogie Network-Gamer+
Home - Table Of Contents - Most Recent - RSS - Permalink - Text
Home - Table Of Contents - Most Recent - RSS - Permalink - Text
CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA Licenses
Posted on 2024-05-21
CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA Licenses
Hat tip to @LeviKornelsen@dice.camp and @darkade@dice.camp for inspiring this essay.
I prefer CC BY for my work because I want the fewest restrictions on reuse possible while retaining the chain of attribution. The chain of attribution is important because, for instance, if someone likes a song in a derivative work they should be able to easily find out who the songwriter is, so they can check out more of their work.
CC0 or public domain is less restrictive. It does not necessarily retain the chain of attribution. Attribution is not required with public domain works.
Now if I am using public domain work in one of my projects I still always include attribution for the reason listed above. But it is not required.
CC BY-SA or attribution sharealike is a viral license and is a completely different ball of worms. Someone wanting to include CC BY-SA work in their project will have to make at least that part of the project that includes that work CC BY-SA.
The idea here is that like the GPL if someone modifies or extends my work by, for example, using my song in their video, then I have the right to modify or extend their derivative work because it will also be licensed CC BY-SA.
If someone uses one of my songs licensed CC BY in a video then that video does not have to be CC BY. CC BY is not viral. CC BY-SA is viral.
Of course if someone else follows the chain of attribution and finds my song they can also use the song since it's licensed CC BY. But they can't use the video without permission unless the videomaker also licenses the video in some way. The videomaker is not required to do that when reusing work licensed CC BY.
All three of these licenses. CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA, are considered free culture licenses because they do not restrict the licensor in any way except requiring attribution for BY/BY-SA licenses and in how they license derivative works in the case of CC BY-SA.
So you can modify CC BY-SA material and sell the end result to make a direct profit. As long as you license the derivative product CC BY-SA.
Creative Commons also has NC or non commercial licenses. These are not considered free culture licenses because they restrict the use of the derivative work. Also non commercial is not well defined. Just about any use has some commercial aspect. The NC licenses try to define around this problem but nobody wants to go to court to find out.
If you want to restrict your work from commercial use the CC BY-SA is a much better choice. It is very well defined. You are using my CC BY-SA work, then your derivative work has to be licensed CC BY-SA.
But didn't I just say that someone can make a new project based on my CC BY-SA work and sell that derivative work. Yes I did. And yes they can.
But when you are talking about commercial projects, like movies, for instance, no investor in a movie is going to allow their investment to go to a work licensed CC BY-SA. Because anyone else could distribute that movie and charge for it and the business they are in is distributing movies and charging for them.
Another excellent use case for the CC BY-SA license is a free collaboration project where the artists all build off of each others work. By licensing everything CC BY-SA in a collaborative project like this no one can make off with the goods. Anyone involved in the project or, in fact, anyone anywhere, can carry the collaboration forward.
So, by licensing your Table Top RPG with the CC BY-SA license, you are encouraging others to modify and add to your game while insuring that their contributions will also be CC BY-SA and can also be modified.
As a final note I want to mention that in the United States copyright law is a federal law which means that copyright suits go to federal court. Now I don't know how much that runs now but twenty years ago when I started researching this stuff just to show up in federal court costs $50,000. So no one is going to copyright court over the licensing of an indie game.
Because of this, the clear intent of the license is very important. Hobbyists and small business creators rely on the good intentions of those sharing and modifying their work. There really is no other recourse.
Home - Table Of Contents - Most Recent - RSS - Permalink - Text
Posted on 2024-05-21
CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA Licenses
Hat tip to @LeviKornelsen@dice.camp and @darkade@dice.camp for inspiring this essay.
I prefer CC BY for my work because I want the fewest restrictions on reuse possible while retaining the chain of attribution. The chain of attribution is important because, for instance, if someone likes a song in a derivative work they should be able to easily find out who the songwriter is, so they can check out more of their work.
CC0 or public domain is less restrictive. It does not necessarily retain the chain of attribution. Attribution is not required with public domain works.
Now if I am using public domain work in one of my projects I still always include attribution for the reason listed above. But it is not required.
CC BY-SA or attribution sharealike is a viral license and is a completely different ball of worms. Someone wanting to include CC BY-SA work in their project will have to make at least that part of the project that includes that work CC BY-SA.
The idea here is that like the GPL if someone modifies or extends my work by, for example, using my song in their video, then I have the right to modify or extend their derivative work because it will also be licensed CC BY-SA.
If someone uses one of my songs licensed CC BY in a video then that video does not have to be CC BY. CC BY is not viral. CC BY-SA is viral.
Of course if someone else follows the chain of attribution and finds my song they can also use the song since it's licensed CC BY. But they can't use the video without permission unless the videomaker also licenses the video in some way. The videomaker is not required to do that when reusing work licensed CC BY.
All three of these licenses. CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA, are considered free culture licenses because they do not restrict the licensor in any way except requiring attribution for BY/BY-SA licenses and in how they license derivative works in the case of CC BY-SA.
So you can modify CC BY-SA material and sell the end result to make a direct profit. As long as you license the derivative product CC BY-SA.
Creative Commons also has NC or non commercial licenses. These are not considered free culture licenses because they restrict the use of the derivative work. Also non commercial is not well defined. Just about any use has some commercial aspect. The NC licenses try to define around this problem but nobody wants to go to court to find out.
If you want to restrict your work from commercial use the CC BY-SA is a much better choice. It is very well defined. You are using my CC BY-SA work, then your derivative work has to be licensed CC BY-SA.
But didn't I just say that someone can make a new project based on my CC BY-SA work and sell that derivative work. Yes I did. And yes they can.
But when you are talking about commercial projects, like movies, for instance, no investor in a movie is going to allow their investment to go to a work licensed CC BY-SA. Because anyone else could distribute that movie and charge for it and the business they are in is distributing movies and charging for them.
Another excellent use case for the CC BY-SA license is a free collaboration project where the artists all build off of each others work. By licensing everything CC BY-SA in a collaborative project like this no one can make off with the goods. Anyone involved in the project or, in fact, anyone anywhere, can carry the collaboration forward.
So, by licensing your Table Top RPG with the CC BY-SA license, you are encouraging others to modify and add to your game while insuring that their contributions will also be CC BY-SA and can also be modified.
As a final note I want to mention that in the United States copyright law is a federal law which means that copyright suits go to federal court. Now I don't know how much that runs now but twenty years ago when I started researching this stuff just to show up in federal court costs $50,000. So no one is going to copyright court over the licensing of an indie game.
Because of this, the clear intent of the license is very important. Hobbyists and small business creators rely on the good intentions of those sharing and modifying their work. There really is no other recourse.
Home - Table Of Contents - Most Recent - RSS - Permalink - Text
