Last week, Lisa Hinchliffe offered a helpful post that aimed to clear up some of the recent confusion around the use of Creative Commons licensed materials for AI training. These licenses, which have been around since 2002, seem to remain poorly understood by many in the scholarly communications community. We’ve been writing about these licenses, what they mean (and don’t mean) since at least 2012, and I thought it might be helpful to collect them in once place. So here, chronologically is what I’ve been able to pull up (please do suggest other posts I may have missed in the comments):
CC-Huh? Fundamental Confusions About the Role of Copyright and the Reuse of Data: From 2012, perhaps the most persistent confusion around CC licenses stems from a confusion about copyright in general. Copyright does not cover the ideas presented in a paper or a book, only the specific written expression of those ideas.
The Financial Burdens of the CC-BY License for Scholarly Literature: Also from 2012, a post noting the increased burden the use of CC licenses brings to the research community, as well as the hypocrisy of institutions promoting such licenses for published works while locking down the actual research results behind those publications via patents.
Licensing Controversy — Balancing Author Rights with Societal Good: a 2013 post looking at author preference for more restrictive licensing terms, the potential benefits of CC BY licensing, and just what is given up by authors.
CC-Bye Bye! Some Consequences of Unfettered Reproduction Rights Become Clearer: CC BY licensed articles turning up in surprising places in 2013.
CC-BY, Copyright, and Stolen Advocacy: A 2014 post discussing some controversial (if seemingly legal) reuses of materials published under CC licenses.
Creative Commons Confusion Continues to Confound Content Creators: More from 2014, authors are upset when their CC licensed works are (legally) reused for commercial purposes.
More Creative Commons Confusion: When Does NC Really Mean “Non-Commercial”?: A 2015 look at the ambiguity of the “non-commercial” terms of the CC BY-NC license.
The Value of Copyright: A Publisher’s Perspective: From 2017, fairly self-explanatory from the title.
Does It Matter Whose Name Appears After the Copyright Symbol When Using Creative Commons? Also from 2017, asking whether there is any benefit to retaining copyright when employing a CC license.
Copyright, Creative Commons, and Confusion: A 2020 explainer, discussing why one would choose particular licensing terms.
Guest Post — Creative Commons in Court: Also from 2020 — how have CC licenses held up in court?
Q: Can You Revoke a Creative Commons License? A: No. Er… Sort Of? Maybe?: A 2022 post asking the question of whether whether it’s possible for a copyright holder, once having made her work available under a Creative Commons (CC) license, to revoke the license and then distribute the work under different terms (or halt its distribution altogether).
GitHub is Sued, and We May Learn Something About Creative Commons Licensing: A 2023 court case may eventually offer some clarity on the legal ramifications of CC licenses.
Confused and Ambivalent: Scholarly Authors and Creative Commons Licenses: From earlier this year, an AAAS survey suggests that author confusions around CC licenses continue.
Can a CC License Constrain Fair Use or Other Copyright Limitations or Exemptions?: And finally, Lisa Hinchliffe’s post that makes clear that a CC license is applied on top of copyright, and cannot restrict what is already allowed under fair use, right of first sale, or other copyright exceptions or limitations.
