Talk:Frequently Asked Questions

From Creative Commons
Revision as of 20:40, 14 July 2011 by Hamilton Abreu (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Kissbuy (talk) to last revision by Hamilton Abreu)
Jump to: navigation, search

Intact, but not in tact

In the section "How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?" the phrase "in tact" is used twice when what is meant is "intact". While amusing, it's not appropriate.

Great work! -TGrip

Fixed, thanks. Akozak 20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Headline text

Energía Eólica de Potencia: "Central Eólica con Acumulación de Energía por Pesos y Generación de Electricidad por Gravedad de 20 MW"

Although the article is only editable by admins.

At the end of the first question a sentence containing questionable grammar appears. <--The html code will also be include the metadata that enables your work to found via Creative Commons-enabled search engines. --> I understand the intent of the answer but the poor grammar may be confusing to non-native English speakers - and irritating to native English speakers. (Hint: cut the 'be' from before 'include' and paste it before 'found via'.

Thanks - DRC Fixed, thanks. Akozak 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In the response to the question: "I used part of a Creative Commons-licensed work, which Creative Commons license can I relicense my work under?"

The second paragraph contains the sentence: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial license."

It would make more sense to me if that sentence were replaced with: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license."

In the first two questions ("how to apply a license"), could you add a link to License_HTML_Code, as that information seems to be missing from this site and from (If it's not missing, then providing a link to it would be helpful.) The License_HTML_Code information is targeted more at web developers than software developers, but it should still be available somewhere, and this seems like a good spot.

Q: I am a webdesigner and the only solution I have found is under CC License. How can I do to use this solution in my websites (commercial)?


"and asks permission to do (or not do) something the license says she must do (or not do)"

should be

"and asks permission to do (or not do) something the license says she must not do (or do)"

Fixed. Thanks!Akozak 20:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in: "How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?"

The chapter sais: "Cite the work's title or name, if such a thing exists. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice to link the name or title directly to the original work." Thats not 100% right. it's not "nice to". You have to do it. See "to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, [...]"

The chapter also sais: "Cite the specific CC license the work is under. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice if the license citation links to the license on the CC website.". That's not right too. You have to link to the license: See "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform."

--PMay 12:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


  • In the question "May I apply a Creative Common license to a work that is in the public domain?" has a typo that reads Copyfruad instead of Copyfraud.
    • Fixed. Thanks! Akozak 20:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I think a new question should be added, something like "Under which terms can I distribute derivative work?' that contains the following info:

'You must still follow the terms of the CC license that governs the use of the original work, but you are allowed to add any terms that do not conflict with the license.' There's a similar question 'If I use a Creative Commons-licensed work to create a new work (ie a derivative work or adaptation), which Creative Commons license can I use for my new work?' but it only covers using CC licenses for derivatives.

The manner of attribution?

In the section "How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?", it is written that:
"In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner of attribution, in addition to the requirement of leaving intact existing copyright notices, they are only able to require certain things. Namely: [...]"

Why is this so?

For example, is there a law that restricts what various attributions the copyright holder can require? (And in which countries would that law apply?)

Detailed question: Why is the copyright holder not allowed to require you to, say, put up a big poster in Times Square in London, with the attribution text, and you holding it, being all nude? Why can they not require impossibly silly manners of attribution, in effect preventing anyone from using the licensed work?

What happens if the copyright holder in the future changes the specified-manner-of-attribution? Would you need to update all your derivatives of the licensed work? Why would you not need to?

(The reason for my asking all this is I intend to use a CC license on a website of mine, with user generated content. Thanks for doing all this work :-) /Magnus )


On the human readable summary page,, there's a link to the full license. The full license gives information that answers the above questions.

I didn't notice that tiny link-to-the-full-license until today. (I.e. the paragraph at the end of the page that reads: This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license). )

I thought the human readable summary was the full license text. Perhaps the link to the full text should be made more prominent so clueless-people-who-are-not-lawyers understand the summary is only a summary?

/Magnus (again)

combining different versions in a collection image

This image collection uses four images. Two of them are PD or only require attribution. But two are Cc-by-sa-3.0 or Cc-by-2.0. I could not find in the FAQ what to do with the different version numbers. Is Cc-by-sa-3.0 for the complete image okay? Or do we need to list both CC licenses separately? Would be great if I could get an answer or a section in the FAQ for this. Thank you! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

SVG graphics

This FAQ says that

Software programs are also protected by copyright but, as explained below, we do not recommend that you apply a Creative Commons license to software code. (Frequently Asked Questions#How does a Creative Commons license operate?)

and that

Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses [those listed at the Free Software Foundation or at the Open Source Initiative] were designed specifically for use with software. (Frequently Asked Questions#Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?.

I suggest that you add one more question with the following title : "Can I use a Creative Commons license for vector graphics ?", containing a warning telling people that even the least permissive CC-BY-SA license enables reusers to create derivative JPG or PNG graphics, or derivated printed material without any obligation to release their own source vector code.

You may want to go as far as to add vector graphics in the list of works you do not recommend to license with a CC license.

Teofilo 09:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would be best to add a warning saying that CC-BY-ND does not prevent distribution of SVG graphics as JPG or PNG without their source code, because this would amount to a format change which is explicitly allowed even with a CC-BY-ND. Teofilo 15:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

performer rights


I have a probably very simple question: if I decide to license my music in form of a music file as an AUTHOR using a CC-non commercial license, do I need the PERFORMERS of the music to agree on releasing it with a CC-non commercial license?

If so, I think this would be an important aspect to add to the FAQ.

Thank you very much!