Hispanopedia Wiki
Articulo de referencia

Licencia Creative Commons

Logotipo de Creative Commons Un vídeo que explica cómo se pueden utilizar las licencias Creative Commons junto con acuerdos de licencia comerciales. Una licencia Creative Common...

Hispanopedia WikiContenido en espanolLectura gratuita

Circled letters cc
Logotipo de Creative Commons
Un vídeo que explica cómo se pueden utilizar las licencias Creative Commons junto con acuerdos de licencia comerciales.

Una licencia Creative Commons ( licencia CC ) es una de las diversas licencias públicas de derechos de autor producidas por Creative Commons (CC), una corporación estadounidense sin fines de lucro , que permiten la distribución gratuita de una "obra" que de otro modo estaría protegida por derechos de autor para el bien público. [ 1 ] [ a ] ​​Una licencia CC se utiliza cuando un autor desea otorgar a otras personas el derecho a compartir, usar y desarrollar una obra que ha creado. CC proporciona al autor flexibilidad (por ejemplo, puede optar por permitir solo usos no comerciales de una obra determinada) y protege a las personas que usan o redistribuyen la obra de un autor de preocupaciones por infracción de derechos de autor, siempre que cumplan con las condiciones que se especifican en la licencia bajo la cual el autor distribuye la obra. [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ]

Existen varios tipos de licencias Creative Commons. Cada licencia se diferencia por diversas combinaciones que condicionan los términos de distribución. Publicada inicialmente en 2002, la suite de licencias ha contado con cinco versiones, numeradas de la 1.0 a la 4.0. [ 7 ] La versión 4.0, publicada en noviembre de 2013, es la más reciente. Si bien las licencias se basaban originalmente en el sistema legal estadounidense, Creative Commons creó puertos de jurisdicción para adaptarse a las leyes internacionales. [ 8 ] [ 9 ]

En octubre de 2014, la Open Knowledge Foundation aprobó las licencias Creative Commons CC  BY, CC  BY-SA y CC0 como conformes con la " Definición Abierta " para contenido y datos. [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ]

Historia

Aaron Swartz (left) and Lawrence Lessig (right).
Aaron Swartz y Lawrence Lessig en el evento de 2002 para el primer lanzamiento de las licencias.

Lawrence Lessig y Eric Eldred diseñaron la Licencia Creative Commons (CCL) en 2001 porque vieron la necesidad de una licencia intermedia entre los modos existentes de derechos de autor y el dominio público . La versión 1.0 de las licencias se publicó oficialmente el 16 de diciembre de 2002. [ 13 ]

Orígenes

La CCL permite a los inventores conservar los derechos sobre sus innovaciones, al tiempo que autoriza cierto uso externo de la invención. [ 14 ] La CCL surgió como reacción a la decisión en el caso Eldred v. Ashcroft , en la que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos dictaminó que las disposiciones de la Ley de Extensión del Plazo de los Derechos de Autor que extendían el plazo de los derechos de autor de las obras eran constitucionales hasta la vida del último autor vivo más 70 años adicionales. [ 14 ]

Transferencia de licencia

Las licencias originales de Creative Commons, sin localización, se redactaron teniendo en cuenta el sistema legal estadounidense; por lo tanto, su redacción puede ser incompatible con la legislación local de otras jurisdicciones , lo que las hace inaplicables en ellas. Para solucionar este problema, Creative Commons solicitó a sus afiliados que tradujeran las distintas licencias para adaptarlas a las leyes locales mediante un proceso denominado « portación ». [ 15 ] En julio de 2011, las licencias de Creative Commons se habían adaptado a más de 50 jurisdicciones en todo el mundo. [ 16 ]

Obras aplicables

¿Quieres trabajar juntos? Animación de Creative Commons
La segunda versión de la animación promocional de Mayer y Bettle que explica Creative Commons con Jamendo como ejemplo.

Las obras con licencia Creative Commons se rigen por la ley de derechos de autor aplicable. [ 17 ] Esto permite que las licencias Creative Commons se apliquen a todas las obras protegidas por derechos de autor, incluyendo: libros, obras de teatro, películas, música, artículos, fotografías, blogs y sitios web.

Software

Aunque el software también se rige por la ley de derechos de autor y las licencias CC son aplicables, la CC recomienda no usarla en software específicamente debido a las limitaciones de retrocompatibilidad con las licencias de software existentes de uso común. [ 18 ] [ 19 ] En cambio, los desarrolladores pueden recurrir al uso de licencias de software libre y de código abierto (FOSS) más amigables para el software . Fuera del caso de uso de licencias FOSS para software, hay varios ejemplos de uso para utilizar licencias CC para especificar un modelo de licencia " Freeware "; ejemplos son The White Chamber , Mari0 o Assault Cube . [ 20 ] A pesar del estatus de CC0 como la licencia de derechos de autor más libre, la Free Software Foundation no recomienda publicar software en el dominio público usando CC0 debido a preocupaciones de patentes. [ 21 ]

Sin embargo, la aplicación de una licencia Creative Commons no puede modificar los derechos permitidos por el uso legítimo o el trato justo, ni imponer restricciones que violen las excepciones de derechos de autor. [ 22 ] Además, las licencias Creative Commons no son exclusivas ni revocables. [ 23 ] Cualquier obra o copia de la obra obtenida bajo una licencia Creative Commons puede seguir utilizándose bajo esa licencia. [ 24 ]

Cuando las obras están protegidas por más de una licencia Creative Commons, el usuario puede elegir cualquiera de ellas. [ 25 ]

Precondiciones

El autor, o el licenciante en caso de que el autor haya cedido los derechos contractualmente, debe poseer los derechos exclusivos sobre la obra. Si la obra ya se ha publicado bajo una licencia pública, cualquier tercero puede subirla a otra plataforma utilizando una licencia compatible y haciendo referencia y atribución a la licencia original (por ejemplo, mediante la URL de la licencia original). [ 26 ]

Consecuencias

The license is non-exclusive, royalty-free, and unrestricted in terms of territory and duration, so it 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 conditions 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 act upon any copyright infringement. The licensee has a limited period to correct any non-compliance.[26]

Types of license

Creative Commons license spectrum between public domain (top) and all rights reserved (bottom). Left side indicates the use-cases allowed, right side the license components. The dark green area indicates Free Cultural Works compatible licenses, the two green areas compatibility with the Remix culture.
2014 graphic featuring multiple charts describing the relative frequencies of different Creative Commons licenses. Top: A bar chart detailing what percent of CC-licensed works were under which licenses as of 2014, with licenses arranged by most open to least open from left to right. Among the free culture licenses (licenses that don't restrict commercial use or adaptations), CC0 was used by 4% of CC-licensed works, CC BY by 19%, and CC BY-SA by 33%; among the two non-commercial licenses permitting remixing, CC BY-NC-SA was used by 16% of CC-licensed works and CC BY-NC was used by 4%; the CC BY-ND license was used by 2%, and the most restrictive license, CC BY-NC-ND, was used by 22% of CC-licensed works. Middle: in 2014, 76% of CC-licensed works were under licenses that permit remixing, and 58% were under licenses that permit commercial usage. Bottom: in 2010, 40% of CC-licensed works used a free culture license; in 2014, this grew to 56%.
CC license usage in 2014 (top and middle), "Free cultural works" compatible license usage 2010 to 2014 (bottom)

Four rights

The CC licenses all grant "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide for non-commercial purposes and without modification.[27] In addition, different versions of license prescribe different rights, as shown in this table:[28]

The last two clauses are not free content licenses, according to definitions such as DFSG or the Free Software Foundation's standards, and cannot be used in contexts that require 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.[29]

Mixing and matching these conditions produces sixteen possible combinations, of which eleven are valid Creative Commons licenses and five are not. Of the five 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 have been retired because 98% of licensors requested attribution, though they do remain available for reference on the website.[30][31][32] This leaves six regularly used licenses plus the CC0 public domain declaration.

Six regularly used licenses

The six licenses in most frequent use are shown in the following table. Among them, those accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation –the public domain dedication and two attribution (BY and BY-SA) licenses –allow the sharing and remixing (creating derivative works), including for commercial use, so long as attribution is given.[32][33][34]

Zero, public domain

Circled zero with slash
CC zero public domain dedication tool logo[35]
Circled C with overlaid backslash
Creative Commons Public Domain Mark. Indicates works which have already fallen into (or were given to) the public domain.
Creative Commons Public Domain Mark (button)

Besides copyright licenses, Creative Commons also offers CC0, a tool for relinquishing copyright and releasing material into the public domain.[34] CC0 is a legal tool for waiving as many rights as legally possible.[36] When that is not legally possible, CC0 falls back to a public-domain-equivalent license.[36] CC0 began development in 2007[37] and was released in 2009.[38][39] A major target of the license was the scientific data community.[40]

In 2010, Creative Commons announced its Public Domain Mark (PDM),[41][42][43] a symbol used to indicate that a work is free of known copyright restrictions and therefore in the public domain. It is analogous to the copyright symbol, which is commonly used to indicate that a work is copyrighted, often as part of a copyright notice. The Public Domain Mark itself does not release a copyrighted work into the public domain like CC0.

The symbol is encoded in Unicode as U+1F16E🅮CIRCLED C WITH OVERLAID BACKSLASH,[44] which was added in Unicode 13.0 in March 2020.[45]

As there is no single definition of public domain and copyright laws differ by jurisdiction, a work can be in the public domain in some countries while still being under copyright in others (so called hybrid status). It is also difficult to assess the legal status of many works. The PDM is recommended to be used only for works that are likely free from any copyright restrictions worldwide.[46] Together, CC0 and the Public Domain Mark replace the Public Domain Dedication and Certification,[47] which took a U.S.-centric approach and co-mingled distinct operations.

In 2011, the Free Software Foundation added CC0 to its free software licenses. However, the Free Software Foundation currently does not recommend using CC0 to release software into the public domain because it explicitly does not grant a patent license.[21]

In February 2012, CC0 was submitted to Open Source Initiative (OSI) for their approval.[48] However, controversy arose over its clause which excluded from the scope of the license any relevant patents held by the copyright holder. This clause was added for scientific data rather than software, but some members of the OSI believed it could weaken users' defenses against software patents. As a result, Creative Commons withdrew their submission, and the license is not currently approved by the OSI.[40][49]

From 2013 to 2017, the stock photography website Unsplash used the CC0 license,[50][51] distributing several million free photos a month.[52]Lawrence Lessig, the founder of Creative Commons, has contributed to the site.[53] Unsplash moved from using the CC0 license to a custom license in June 2017[54] and to an explicitly nonfree license in February 2018.

In October 2014, the Open Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative Commons CC0 as conformant with the Open Definition and recommended the license to dedicate content to the public domain.[11][12]

In July 2022, Fedora Linux disallowed software licensed under CC0 due to patent rights explicitly not being waived under the license.[55]

Retired licenses

Due to either disuse or criticism, a number of previously offered Creative Commons licenses have since been retired,[30][56] and are no longer recommended for new works. The retired licenses include all licenses lacking the Attribution element other than CC0, as well as the following four licenses:

  • Developing Nations License: a license which only applies to developing countries deemed to be "non-high-income economies" by the World Bank. Full copyright restrictions apply to people in other countries.[57]
  • Sampling: parts of the work can be used for any purpose other than advertising, but the whole work cannot be copied or modified[58]
  • Sampling Plus: parts of the work can be copied and modified for any purpose other than advertising, and the entire work can be copied for noncommercial purposes[59]
  • NonCommercial Sampling Plus: the whole work or parts of the work can be copied and modified for non-commercial purposes[60]

Version 4.0

The latest version 4.0 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.[61][62][63][28] No new ports have been implemented in version 4.0 of the license.[64] Version 4.0 discourages using ported versions and instead acts as a single global license.[65] Additionally, there is a thirty-day grace period to correct the breach of the licensing terms by the licensee and have their rights reinstated. Prior to 4.0 the licensee would lose their rights after breaking the license's terms. This does not impact the ability for licensors to seek remedies.[62][66] In addition it allows licensors to request to remove attribution form verbatim work which prior to 4.0 only applied to adaptations.[62]

Rights and obligations

Attribution

Since 2004, all current licenses other than the CC0 and CC-PD variant require attribution of the original author, as signified by the BY component (as in the preposition "by").[31] The attribution must be given to "the best of [one's] ability using the information available".[67] Creative Commons suggests the mnemonic "TASL": title – author – source [web link] – [CC] licence. Generally this implies the following:

  • Include any copyright notices (if applicable). If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, those notices must be left intact, or reproduced in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which the work is being re-published.
  • Cite the author's name, screen name, or user ID, etc. If the work is being published on the Internet, it is nice to link that name to the person's profile page, if such a page exists.
  • Cite the work's title or name (if applicable), if such a thing exists. If the work is being published on the Internet, it is nice to link the name or title 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 citation links to the license on the CC website.
  • Mention if the work is a derivative work or adaptation. In addition to the above, one needs to identify that their work is a derivative work, e.g., "This is a Finnish translation of [original work] by [author]." or "Screenplay based on [original work] by [author]."

Non-commercial licenses

The NonCommercial license allows image creators to restrict selling and profiting from their works by other parties and thus maintaining free of charge access to images.

The "non-commercial" option included in some Creative Commons licenses is controversial in definition,[68] as 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.[69] In 2014 Wikimedia Deutschland published a guide to using Creative Commons licenses as wiki pages for translations and as PDF.[26]

Adaptability

An example of a permitted combination of two works, one being CC BY-SA and the other being public domain

Rights in an adaptation can be 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.[70]

The legal implications of large numbers of works having Creative Commons licensing are difficult to predict, and there is speculation that media creators often lack insight to be able to choose the license which best meets their intent in applying it.[73]

Some works licensed using Creative Commons licenses have been involved in several court cases.[74] Creative Commons itself was not a party to any of these cases; they only involved licensors or licensees of Creative Commons licenses. When the cases went as far as decisions by 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

In early 2006, podcaster Adam Curry sued a Dutch tabloid who published photos from Curry's Flickr page without Curry's permission. The photos were licensed under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license. While the verdict was in favor of Curry, the tabloid avoided having to pay restitution to him as 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 Court's decision is especially noteworthy because it confirms that the conditions of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed under it, and binds users of such content even without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of the license."[75][76][77][78]

Virgin Mobile

In 2007, Virgin Mobile 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 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 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-year-old Alison Chang at a fund-raising carwash for her church,[79] caused some controversy when she sued Virgin Mobile. The photo was taken by Alison's church youth counselor, Justin Ho-Wee Wong, who uploaded the image to Flickr under the Creative Commons license.[79] In 2008, the case (concerning personality rights rather than copyright as such) was thrown out of a Texas court for lack of jurisdiction.[80][81]

SGAE vs Fernández

In the fall of 2006, the collecting societySociedad 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 Court rejected the collecting society's claims because the owner of the bar proved that the music he was using was not managed by the society.[82]

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 defendant 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 it is manifested both by the legal representative of the Association and by Manuela Villa Acosta, in charge of the cultural programming of the association, which is compatible with the alternative character of the Association and its integration in the movement called 'copyleft'.[83]

GateHouse Media, Inc. v. That's Great News, LLC

On June 30, 2010, GateHouse Media filed a lawsuit against That's Great News, LLC. 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.[84] GateHouse sued That's Great News for copyright infringement and breach of contract. GateHouse claimed that That's Great News violated the non-commercial and no-derivative works restrictions on GateHouse Creative Commons licensed work when they published the material on their website. The case was settled on August 17, 2010, though the terms of the settlement were not made public.[84][85]

Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC

In 2007, photographer Art Drauglis uploaded several pictures to the photo-sharing website Flickr, giving them the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License (CC BY-SA). One photo, titled "Swain's Lock, Montgomery Co., MD.", was downloaded by Kappa Map Group, a map-making company, and published in 2012 on the front cover of Montgomery Co. Maryland Street Atlas. The text "Photo: Swain's Lock, Montgomery Co., MD Photographer: Carly Lesser & Art Drauglis, Creative Commoms [sic], CC-BY-SA-2.0" was placed on the back cover, but nothing on the front indicated authorship.

La validez de la licencia CC BY-SA 2.0 no estaba en disputa. CC  BY-SA  2.0 exige que el licenciatario utilice términos no menos restrictivos que los de CC BY-SA 2.0. El atlas se vendió comercialmente y no para su reutilización gratuita por terceros. La disputa radicaba en si los términos de la licencia de Drauglis que se aplicarían a las "obras derivadas" se aplicaban a todo el atlas. Drauglis demandó a los demandados en junio de 2014 por infracción de derechos de autor e incumplimiento de licencia, solicitando medidas declarativas y cautelares, daños y perjuicios, honorarios y costas. Drauglis afirmó, entre otras cosas, que Kappa Map Group "excedió el alcance de la licencia porque el demandado no publicó el atlas bajo una licencia con los mismos términos o similares a aquellos bajo los cuales se licenció originalmente la fotografía". [ 86 ] El juez desestimó el caso por ese motivo, dictaminando que el atlas no era una obra derivada de la fotografía en el sentido de la licencia, sino más bien una obra colectiva . Dado que el atlas no era una obra derivada de la fotografía, Kappa Map Group no necesitaba licenciar todo el atlas bajo la licencia CC BY-SA 2.0. El juez también determinó que la obra había sido debidamente atribuida. [ 87 ]

En particular, el juez determinó que era suficiente dar crédito al autor de la foto con la misma prominencia que a los autores de autoría similar (como los autores de los mapas individuales que aparecen en el libro) y que el nombre "CC-BY-SA-2.0" es suficientemente preciso para localizar la licencia correcta en internet y puede considerarse un identificador válido para la licencia. [ 4 ]

Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VGSE)

En julio de 2016, la revista informática alemana LinuxUser informó que un bloguero alemán, Christoph Langner, utilizó dos fotografías con licencia CC BY del fotógrafo berlinés Dennis Skley en su blog privado Linuxundich. Langner mencionó debidamente al autor y la licencia, y añadió un enlace a la obra original. Posteriormente, la Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VGSE) (Asociación para la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual en Internet) se puso en contacto con Langner para exigirle el pago de 2300 € por no proporcionar el nombre completo de la obra, el nombre completo del autor, el texto de la licencia y un enlace a la fuente, tal como lo exige la letra pequeña de la licencia. De esta suma, 40 € se destinarían al fotógrafo, y el resto lo retendría la VGSE. [ 88 ] [ 89 ] El Tribunal Regional Superior de Colonia desestimó la demanda en mayo de 2019. [ 90 ]

Obras bajo licencia Creative Commons

Chart of the growth of the number of Creative Commons licensed works up to 2017. In 2006, there were 140,000,000 Creative Commons-licensed works; in 2010, 400,000,000 CC-licensed works; in 2014, 882,000,000; in 2015, 1,118,900,000; in 2016, 1,204,935,537; in 2017, 1,471,401,740.
Número de obras con licencia Creative Commons a fecha de 2017, según el informe Estado de los Bienes Comunes.

Creative Commons maintains a content directory wiki of organizations and projects using Creative Commons licenses.[91] On its website CC also provides case studies of projects using CC licenses across the world.[92] CC licensed content can also be accessed through a number of content directories and search engines.

Unicode symbols

After being proposed by Creative Commons in 2017,[93] Creative Commons license symbols were added to Unicode with version 13.0 in 2020.[94] The circle with an equal sign (meaning no derivatives) is present in older versions of Unicode, unlike all the other symbols.

These symbols can be used in succession to indicate a particular Creative Commons license, for example, CC-BY-SA (CC-Attribution-ShareAlike) can be expressed with Unicode symbols CIRCLED CC, CIRCLED HUMAN FIGURE and CIRCLED ANTICLOCKWISE ARROW placed next to each other: 🅭🅯🄎

Case law database

In December 2020, the Creative Commons organization launched an online database covering licensing case law and legal scholarship.[95][96]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑A "work" is any creative material made by a person. A painting, a graphic, a book, a song and its lyrics, or a photograph of almost anything are all examples of "works".

References

  1. ↑"Sharing Openly, Sharing Globally". Creative Commons. Retrieved May 28, 2026.
  2. ↑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.
  3. ↑"What are Creative Commons licenses?". Wageningen University & Research. June 16, 2015. Archived from the original on March 15, 2018. Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  4. 12"Creative Commons licenses". University of Michigan Library. Archived from the original on November 21, 2018. Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  5. ↑"Creative Commons licenses"(PDF). University of Glasgow. Archived(PDF) from the original on March 15, 2018. Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  6. ↑"The Creative Commons licenses". UNESCO. Archived from the original on March 15, 2018. Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  7. ↑"License Versions". Creative Commons Wiki. Archived from the original on June 30, 2017. Retrieved July 4, 2017.
  8. ↑"Creative Commons | University of Minnesota Libraries". www.lib.umn.edu. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  9. ↑"What Is a Creative Commons License?". Copyright Alliance. September 7, 2016. Archived from the original on September 30, 2024. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  10. ↑"Open Definition 2.1". Open Definition. Archived from the original on January 27, 2017. Retrieved January 25, 2023.
  11. 12"Conformant Licenses". Open Definition. Archived from the original on March 1, 2016. Retrieved January 25, 2023.
  12. 1 2 Vollmer, Timothy (27 de diciembre de 2013). "Licencias Creative Commons 4.0 BY y BY-SA aprobadas conforme a la Definición Abierta" . Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 4 de marzo de 2016. Recuperado el 25 de enero de 2023 .
  13. ↑ "Creative Commons presenta licencias de derechos de autor legibles por máquina" . Creative Commons . 16 de diciembre de 2002. Archivado del original el 22 de diciembre de 2002.
  14. 1 2 "1.1 La historia de Creative Commons" . Certificado Creative Commons para educadores, bibliotecarios académicos y GLAM . Archivado del original el 8 de abril de 2023. Recuperado el 28 de abril de 2021 .
  15. ↑ Murray, Laura J. (2014). Poniendo la propiedad intelectual en su lugar : discursos sobre derechos, trabajo creativo y la vida cotidiana . S. Tina Piper, Kirsty Robertson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN  978-0-19-933626-5OCLC 844373100 .​ 
  16. ↑ "Worldwide". Creative Commons. Archivado del original el 15 de octubre de 2008.
  17. ↑ "Código Legal de Creative Commons" . Creative Commons . 9 de enero de 2008. Archivado del original el 11 de febrero de 2010. Consultado el 22 de febrero de 2010 .
  18. ↑ "Preguntas frecuentes sobre Creative Commons: ¿Puedo usar una licencia Creative Commons para software?" . Wiki.creativecommons.org. 29 de julio de 2013. Archivado del original el 27 de noviembre de 2010. Consultado el 20 de septiembre de 2013 .
  19. ↑ "Licencias que no son de software" . Elija una licencia . Archivado del original el 2 de enero de 2022. Consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2020 .
  20. ↑ "AssaultCube – Licencia" . assault.cubers.net . Archivado del original el 25 de diciembre de 2010. Recuperado el 30 de enero de 2011. AssaultCube es software gratuito. [...] El contenido, el código y las imágenes del sitio web de AssaultCube y toda la documentación están bajo la licencia "Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Sin adaptar" .
  21. 1 2 "Varias licencias y comentarios sobre ellas" . Proyecto GNU . Archivado del original el 24 de julio de 2010. Recuperado el 4 de abril de 2015 .
  22. ↑ "¿Afectan las licencias Creative Commons a las excepciones y limitaciones de los derechos de autor, como el uso legítimo y el trato justo?" Preguntas frecuentes – Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 8 de agosto de 2015. Consultado el 26 de julio de 2015 .
  23. ↑ "¿Qué sucede si cambio de opinión sobre el uso de una licencia CC?" . Preguntas frecuentes – Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 8 de agosto de 2015 . Consultado el 26 de julio de 2015 .
  24. ↑ "¿Qué sucede si el autor decide revocar la licencia CC del material que estoy utilizando?" . Preguntas frecuentes – Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 8 de agosto de 2015 . Consultado el 26 de julio de 2015 .
  25. ↑ "¿ Cómo funcionan las licencias CC?" Preguntas frecuentes – Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 8 de agosto de 2015. Consultado el 26 de julio de 2015 .
  26. 1 2 3 Till Kreutzer (2014). Contenido abierto: una guía práctica para el uso de licencias Creative Commons (PDF) . Wikimedia Deutschland ea ISBN 978-3-940785-57-2. Archivado (PDF) del original el 4 de abril de 2015 . Recuperado el 23 de marzo de 2015 .
  27. ↑ "Derechos básicos" . Creative Commons . 12 de junio de 2008. Archivado del original el 8 de febrero de 2010. Consultado el 22 de febrero de 2010 .
  28. 1 2 "Preguntas frecuentes" . Creative Commons . Creative Commons Corporation. 28 de agosto de 2020. Archivado del original el 27 de noviembre de 2010. Recuperado el 26 de noviembre de 2020 .
  29. ↑ "Creative Commons GNU LGPL" . Archivado del original el 22 de junio de 2009. Consultado el 20 de julio de 2009 .
  30. 1 2 "Herramientas legales retiradas" . Creative Commons . Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 3 de mayo de 2016. Recuperado el 31 de mayo de 2012 .
  31. 1 2 "Anuncio (y explicación) de nuestras nuevas licencias 2.0" . Creativecommons.org. 25 de mayo de 2004. Archivado del original el 21 de septiembre de 2013. Recuperado el 20 de septiembre de 2013 .
  32. 1 2 "Acerca de las licencias – Creative Commons" . Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 26 de julio de 2015. Recuperado el 26 de julio de 2015 .
  33. ↑ "Creative Commons — Atribución 3.0 Estados Unidos" . Creative Commons . 16 de noviembre de 2009. Archivado del original el 24 de febrero de 2010. Consultado el 22 de febrero de 2010 .
  34. 1 2 "CC0" . Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 26 de febrero de 2010. Recuperado el 22 de febrero de 2010 .
  35. ↑ "Descargas" . Creative Commons. 16 de diciembre de 2015. Archivado del original el 25 de diciembre de 2015. Consultado el 24 de diciembre de 2015 .
  36. 1 2 Kreutzer, Till. "Validez de la Dedicación de Dominio Público Universal Creative Commons Zero 1.0 y su usabilidad para metadatos bibliográficos desde la perspectiva de la Ley de Derechos de Autor alemana" (PDF) . Archivado (PDF) del original el 25 de mayo de 2017. Recuperado el 4 de julio de 2017 .
  37. ↑ "Creative Commons lanza los programas CC0 y CC+" (Comunicado de prensa). Creative Commons . 17 de diciembre de 2007. Archivado del original el 23 de febrero de 2010. Consultado el 22 de febrero de 2010 .
  38. ↑ Baker, Gavin (16 de enero de 2009). "Informe de la reunión de la junta directiva de CC" . Noticias de acceso abierto . Archivado del original el 19 de septiembre de 2010. Recuperado el 22 de febrero de 2010 .
  39. ↑ "Ampliando el dominio público: Parte cero" . Creativecommons.org. 11 de marzo de 2009. Archivado del original el 21 de septiembre de 2013. Consultado el 20 de septiembre de 2013 .
  40. 12Christopher Allan Webber. "CC withdrawl [sic] of CC0 from OSI process". In the Open Source Initiative Licence review mailing list. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved February 24, 2012.
  41. ↑"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 20, 2013.
  42. ↑"Creative Commons announces the Public Domain Mark". The H Open. The H. October 12, 2010. Archived from the original on October 16, 2010. Retrieved October 12, 2010.
  43. ↑Diane Peters (October 11, 2010). "Improving Access to the Public Domain: the Public Domain Mark". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 12, 2010.
  44. ↑"Enclosed Alphanumeric Supplement"(PDF). Unicode Consortium. Archived(PDF) from the original on June 6, 2020. Retrieved December 29, 2025.
  45. ↑"DerivedAge-13.0.0.txt". Unicode Consortium.
  46. ↑"Public Domain Mark - Creative Commons". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved January 29, 2019.
  47. ↑"Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain Certification". Creative Commons. August 20, 2009. Archived from the original on February 23, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  48. ↑Carl Boettiger. "OSI recognition for Creative Commons Zero License?". In the Open Source Initiative Licence review mailing list. Open Source Initiative. Archived from the original on September 26, 2013. Retrieved February 1, 2012.
  49. ↑ Preguntas frecuentes de la Iniciativa de Código Abierto (21 de octubre de 2007). "¿Qué pasa con la dedicación de dominio público Creative Commons "CC0" ("CC Zero")? ¿Eso es código abierto?" . Iniciativa de Código Abierto. Archivado del original el 19 de mayo de 2013. Recuperado el 25 de mayo de 2013 .
  50. ↑ "Unsplash es un sitio lleno de imágenes gratuitas para tu próxima página de inicio" . The Next Web . 14 de agosto de 2013. Archivado del original el 17 de noviembre de 2015. Consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2015 .
  51. ↑ "Licencia | Unsplash" . unsplash.com . Archivado del original el 17 de noviembre de 2015. Consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2015 .
  52. ↑ "Por qué crear algo útil para los demás es la mejor estrategia de marketing" . Fast Company . 18 de febrero de 2015. Archivado del original el 14 de noviembre de 2015. Consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2015 .
  53. ↑ "Lawrence Lessig | Libro de Unsplash" . book.unsplash.com . Archivado del original el 17 de noviembre de 2015. Consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2015 .
  54. ↑ "Actualización de la comunidad: cambios en la licencia y los términos de servicio de Unsplash" . 22 de junio de 2017. Archivado del original el 7 de enero de 2018. Consultado el 7 de enero de 2018 .
  55. ↑ Claburn, Thomas (25 de julio de 2022). "Fedora se muestra disgustada con la licencia CC 'Sin derechos reservados'" . The Register . Archivado del original el 12 de octubre de 2022. Recuperado el 14 de septiembre de 2022 .
  56. ↑ Lessig, Lawrence (4 de junio de 2007). "Retirada de la licencia independiente de DevNations y una licencia de muestreo" . Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 7 de julio de 2007. Recuperado el 5 de julio de 2007 .
  57. ↑ "Licencia para países en desarrollo" . Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 12 de abril de 2012. Consultado el 9 de abril de 2012 .
  58. ↑ "Muestreo 1.0" . Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 16 de marzo de 2012. Recuperado el 9 de abril de 2012 .
  59. ↑"Sampling Plus 1.0". Creative Commons. November 13, 2009. Archived from the original on April 11, 2012. Retrieved April 9, 2012.
  60. ↑"NonCommercial Sampling Plus 1.0". Creative Commons. November 13, 2009. Archived from the original on March 25, 2012. Retrieved April 9, 2012.
  61. ↑Peters, Diane (November 25, 2013). "CC's Next Generation Licenses — Welcome Version 4.0!". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on November 26, 2013. Retrieved November 26, 2013.
  62. 123"What's new in 4.0?". Creative Commons. 2013. Archived from the original on November 29, 2013. Retrieved November 26, 2013.
  63. ↑"CC 4.0, an end to porting Creative Commons licences?". TechnoLlama. September 25, 2011. Archived from the original on September 2, 2013. Retrieved August 11, 2013.
  64. ↑"CC Affiliate Network". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on July 9, 2011. Retrieved July 8, 2011.
  65. ↑"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.
  66. ↑"Version 4 - Creative Commons". wiki.creativecommons.org. Archived from the original on December 28, 2025. Retrieved January 10, 2026.
  67. ↑"Frequently Frequently Asked Questions". Creative Commons. February 2, 2010. Archived from the original on February 26, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  68. ↑"Defining Noncommercial report published". Creativecommons.org. September 14, 2009. Archived from the original on September 21, 2013. Retrieved September 20, 2013.
  69. ↑"The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License". Freedomdefined.org. August 26, 2013. Retrieved September 20, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  70. ↑"Frequently Asked Questions". CC Wiki. Archived from the original on March 25, 2014. Retrieved March 25, 2014.
  71. ↑"Frequently Asked Questions". Creative Commons. July 14, 2016. Archived from the original on November 27, 2010. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  72. ↑Creative Commons licenses without a non-commercial or no-derivatives requirement, including public domain/CC0, are all cross-compatible. Non-commercial licenses are compatible with each other and with less restrictive licenses, except for Attribution-ShareAlike. No-derivatives licenses are not compatible with any license, including themselves.
  73. ↑Katz, Zachary (2005). "Pitfalls of Open Licensing: An Analysis of Creative Commons Licensing". IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review. 46 (3): 391.
  74. ↑"Creative Commons Case Law". Archived from the original on September 1, 2011. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
  75. ↑"Creative Commons license upheld by court". News.cnet.com. Archived from the original on October 25, 2012. Retrieved December 24, 2012.
  76. ↑Rimmer, Matthew (January 2007). Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My Ipod – Matthew Rimmer – Google Böcker. Edward Elgar. ISBN 9781847207142. Archived from the original on April 14, 2016. Retrieved December 24, 2012.
  77. ↑"Creative Commons License Upheld by Dutch Court". Groklaw. March 16, 2006. Archived from the original on May 5, 2010. Retrieved September 2, 2006.
  78. ↑"Creative Commons Licenses Enforced in Dutch Court". March 16, 2006. Archived from the original on September 6, 2011. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
  79. 12Cohen, Noam. "Use 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-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.
  80. ↑Evan Brown (January 22, 2009). "No personal jurisdiction over Australian defendant in Flickr right of publicity case". internetcases. Internet Cases, a blog about law and technology. Archived from the original on July 13, 2011. Retrieved September 25, 2010.
  81. ↑"Lawsuit Against Virgin Mobile and Creative Commons – FAQ". September 27, 2007. Archived from the original on September 7, 2011. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
  82. ↑Mia Garlick (March 23, 2006). "Spanish Court Recognizes CC-Music". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on September 26, 2023. Retrieved November 22, 2023.
  83. ↑"Sentencia nº 12/2006 Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 5 de Madrid". Derecho de Internet (in Spanish). Archived from the original on November 26, 2015. Retrieved December 24, 2015.
  84. 12Evan Brown (July 2, 2010). "New Copyright Lawsuit Involves Creative Commons". internetcases. Internet Cases. Archived from the original on June 21, 2012. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
  85. ↑"GateHouse Media v. That's Great News". Citizen Media Law Project. August 5, 2010. Archived from the original on May 2, 2012. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
  86. ↑"Memorandum Opinion"(PDF). United States District Court for the District of Columbia. August 18, 2015. Archived(PDF) from the original on September 21, 2016. Retrieved August 29, 2016.
  87. ↑ Guadamuz, Andrés (24 de octubre de 2015). "Tribunal estadounidense interpreta la cláusula copyleft en las licencias Creative Commons" . TechnoLlama . Archivado del original el 22 de diciembre de 2015. Recuperado el 10 de diciembre de 2015 .
  88. ↑ Luther, Jörg (julio de 2016). "Kleingedrucktes – Editorial" [ Letra pequeña – Editorial ] . LinuxUser (en alemán) (7/2016). ISSN 1615-4444 . Archivado del original el 15 de septiembre de 2016. Recuperado el 9 de septiembre de 2016 . 
  89. ↑ "Abmahnung des Verbandes zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VSGE)" [ Aviso de cese y desistimiento de la Asociación para la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual en Internet (VSGE) ] (en alemán). Hannover, Alemania: Feil Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft. 8 de enero de 2014. Archivado desde el original el 14 de septiembre de 2016 . Consultado el 9 de septiembre de 2016 .
  90. ↑ "Creative Commons-Foto-Abmahnung: Rasch Rechtsanwälte setzen erfolgreich Gegenansprüche durch" [ Aviso fotográfico de Creative Commons: los abogados de Rasch hacen cumplir con éxito las contrademandas ] . anwalt.de (en alemán). 22 de mayo de 2019. Archivado desde el original el 19 de diciembre de 2019 . Consultado el 18 de diciembre de 2019 .
  91. ↑ "Directorios de contenido" . creativecommons.org. Archivado del original el 30 de abril de 2009. Consultado el 24 de abril de 2009 .
  92. ↑ "Estudios de caso" . Creative Commons. Archivado del original el 24 de diciembre de 2011. Recuperado el 20 de diciembre de 2011 .
  93. ↑ "Propuesta para agregar símbolos de licencia CC a UCS" (PDF) . Unicode . 24 de julio de 2017. Archivado (PDF) del original el 26 de marzo de 2021. Recuperado el 21 de agosto de 2020 .
  94. ↑ Steuer, Eric (18 de marzo de 2020). "El estándar Unicode ahora incluye símbolos de licencia CC" . Creative Commons . Archivado del original el 27 de julio de 2020. Recuperado el 6 de julio de 2020 .
  95. ↑Salazar, Krystle (December 3, 2020). "Explore the new CC legal database site!". Creative Commons. Mountain View, California, US. Archived from the original on January 3, 2021. Retrieved January 3, 2021.
  96. ↑Creative Commons. "Creative Commons Legal Database". Creative Commons. Mountain View, California, US. Archived from the original on January 17, 2021. Retrieved January 3, 2021.
  • Official website
  • Full selection of licenses
  • CC License options
  • Licenses. Overview of free licenses. freedomdefined.org
  • Web-friendly formatted summary of CC BY-SA 4.0