Just what does the SA mean?
Genealogy friend and colleague Yvette Hoitink writes a terrific blog about research in The Netherlands. If you have Dutch ancestors and haven’t found the blog yet, you really need to check out Dutch Genealogy — and you should read it even if you don’t have Dutch ancestors since some of the methodology tips are spot on.
But Yvette came across a question the other day that she didn’t have an easy answer to, so she brought it to The Legal Genealogist:
In the Netherlands, there are several institutions that make their photo collections available online under a Creative-Commons-Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC-BY-SA). I use CC-BY-SA photos on my Dutch Genealogy blog all the time, and one of my readers challenged whether that was an acceptable use, since my blog is commercial and reserves copyrights.
We were discussing how you would be allowed to use a photo with a CC-BY-SA license:
• If you use the photograph in a blog post, are you required to make the whole blog post (or even the whole blog or website) available under a CC-BY-SA license?
• Can you use the photograph in a book that you sell for profit? My discussion partner said no, because selling books isn’t “sharing alike.”
In both cases, I say that the license only applies to the photo. If your blog post or book makes it clear that the photo is available under CC-BY-SA license, that doesn’t mean you have to make the surrounding work (post/book) available under a CC-BY-SA license as well. Also, CC-BY-SA does not prohibit commercial use, there is a special “NC” flavor of the license for that, which the institute chose not to use. So there is nothing wrong with me using the photo in a commercial publication, as long as I make it clear that the photo is available under that CC-BY-SA license.
BTW, the organizations whose photos I use are happy with the way I use their photos and are glad to see them used, which is the reason they made them available under this license in the first place. So I’m not facing legal problems, but would like to know where I stand anyway. I would like to know if I’m right.
Easy answer:
Yvette is right.
Now… let’s back up and make sure we’re all on the same track.
Let’s talk first about Creative Commons — “a nonprofit organization that enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools.” For a content producer, Creative Commons offers “free, easy-to-use copyright licenses (that) provide a simple, standardized way to give the public permission to share and use … creative work — on conditions …. CC licenses … easily change … copyright terms from the default of ‘all rights reserved’ to ‘some rights reserved.’” For a content user, “there is a giant pool of CC-licensed creativity available… There are hundreds of millions of works — from songs and videos to scientific and academic material — available to the public for free and legal use under the terms of our copyright licenses, with more being contributed every day.”1
The most critical thing to understand is that “Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative to copyright. They work alongside copyright and enable (content producers) to modify … copyright terms to best suit (their) needs.”2
There are a lot of different elements to Creative Commons licensing. They range from effectively free use with no limits at all — the CC0 license3 — to the CC BY-NC-ND license — under which the user must give attribution to the creator (BY), may not use the work for commercial purposes (NC) and may not make any alterations to or changes in the content (ND).4
The particular license term Yvette is asking about comes into play if the content creator will allow a user to adapt the work to fit the user’s needs (so it wouldn’t have the ND designation) but then requires the user to let anybody else user the newly-altered work on the same terms. That’s the SA — ShareAlike — element.
So… what exactly does that mean?
And the Creative Commons website itself tells us. If a work such as an image is ShareAlike, then “If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original” and “You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.”5
The operative language here is “you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original” — a clear reference to the end product after the changes you made to the original item you’re using. Not the whole product in which you used the item — just the item itself.
If anybody had any doubts about that, there’s a much longer version of the license set out at the Creative Commons website in an area called Legal Code. It defines the scope of the license to the Licensed Material (defined as “the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this (Creative Commons) License”) and the obligation of the user to give anybody else the same Licensed Rights (defined as “Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material”). And the only thing the user can’t do is add any other limits on using the licensed materials.6
So… Yvette has a blog, and decides to include a photo that’s got a CC-BY-SA license on it. She crops it, changes it color tones, zings it up a little in post-processing, and uses it to illustrate a blog post, citing the CC-BY-SA license. Anybody else can use that changed, modified, post-processed image — and can make changes of their own too. And that anybody else also has to cite that CC-BY-SA license, opening the door to anybody else — and so it goes.
But the license only applies to the photo. It doesn’t attach to the container in which the photo is placed — the blog itself or even tbe individual blog post.
Pretty neat, huh? If you’re a content producer or a content user, Creative Commons is a great way to go.
SOURCES
- “About,” Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/ : accessed 29 Nov 2015). ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- See “Our Public Domain Tools: CC0,” Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/ : accessed 29 Nov 2015). ↩
- See ibid., “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).” ↩
- See ibid., “Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).” ↩
- See ibid., “Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.” ↩
Thank you so much for this article. I love Creative Commons, and this helps clarify exactly how it works, which has been a bit fuzzy for me. (And you’re right, Yvette Hoitink’s Dutch Genealogy is a great blog, as well.)
Glad you found it useful!
Thank you so much for your explanation. Although I felt my interpretation made sense, I wasn’t sure about whether I would have to license my whole article or blog. It’s great to know I can continue the way I have been. It’s such a treat to have all these CC-licensed photos to work with! And thank you for the kind words about my blog!
Your blog is terrific, and thanks for the great question!
I confess I’m not technical enough to understand all of your explanation, Judy. But then I’m not technical enough to be using CC either! It does make sense that the image itself is what’s at issue, and that CC is working hard to make millions of images usable to the general public. Even with alterations by the user, and re-user, w/o lots of legal folderol. Do I have that much right? I’ve seen some very cool images on Yvette’s blog. I get lost in her blog, in the best possible way. I can spend lots of time learning a great deal, both about genealogy of the Netherlands, and about methodology. I think I first learned of it through one of your own posts. Two of the best blogs out there, ladies! Thanks!
How wonderful to hear that you enjoy getting lost on my blog 🙂 Most of the images I use on my blog are courtesy of institutions who have made their collections available under a Creative Commons license or in the Public Domain. Whenever I need inspiration for blog topics, I just browse their collections and always find something to write about.
CC is working hard to make millions of images usable to the general public. Even with alterations by the user, and re-user, w/o lots of legal folderol. Do I have that much right?
You sure do, and that’s exactly the point of Creative Commons — and not just images. Some writers also choose to license their materials under Creative Commons licenses too!
With many users of photographs receiving demand settlement letters from Getty and other commercial photo licensing libraries for (unknowingly/inadvertently) using their images without securing a license, I’m more than ever cautious about using Creative Commons media, contemporary works marked as being in the Public Domain, or websites that identify their content as being “free” to use. Works could have been mislabeled or posted/shared by unauthorized parties; if so, your use can potentially get you in trouble with the original copyright owner (just hope their works are not timely registered).
If I come across CC-marked photographs that fit my requirements, I’ll:
1) Email the owners to verify that the copyrights are rightfully theirs and that they have licensed the works via CC. With names in-hand, I’ll search the US Copyright Office’s on-line database to see if the authors have registered the works, further proving their authorships;
2) I’ll also describe my use of the works and ask then to confirm that my use complies with their CC wishes; and
3) I’ll also perform a Google reverse-image search to see if the images track back to the copyright owners.
If I’m not comfortable with any of the above search results, then I’ll continue combing the web for other images.
If I’m unable to locate the author and my use doesn’t fully fit Fair Use, then I’ll skip using the image altogether–it’s just too risky, especially with copyright’s automatic liability.
Using the three methods will provide me with peace of mind that I’m in full compliance of using third-party owned photographs. This strategy could also provide me with some legal relief; my record-keeping would show evidence of my good faith and that my use was truly(!) innocent. This approach has work well for me.
In the alternative, paying a few dollars to license a rights-managed or royalty-free stock imagery from Getty or one of its discount competitors can offer licensees full assurances that the image has been properly cleared (the risk has now shifted to the licensor). Though I can NOT(!!!) stand Getty, it does offer a wide range of portfolio images that can be “embedded” for non-commercial uses that can provide relatively no-cost image licensing to end-users (however, Getty is likely tracking and collecting data on those posted images).
My observations tell me that using CC, PD, or “free” Internet media continues to have risks. If the work doesn’t fall within Fair Use, at the very least, perform some due diligence and research the image’s provenance before using it publicly.
Due diligence is always the rule, and if you’re operating anything even remotely approaching a commercial site, you’d be foolish not to run these checks.