1. Attribution- No Dervis-
2. Attribution/Non-Commercial/Share Alike
3. Attribution-Share Alike
Choosing the right CC license for a work can be a deliberative and thought-provoking process, but it doesn't have to be. We describe license-choosing in more detail below, but if you want to pick one quickly, Creative Commons has a simple tool for choosing a license based on a couple questions about how you'd like people to use your work.
Basically, when you're looking to share your work with others, ask yourself: do I want to allow commercial use of my work or not, and then second, do I want to allow modifications of my work or not? If you're not concerned about commercial use or controlling modifications of your work (in fact, you'd love it if people made derivative works based on yours!), then you can use the CC Attribution (CC BY) license. If you want to allow derivative works, but require that any derivatives also be made open, you can add the ShareAlike condition.
It doesn't hurt to think a bit more deeply about what uses you want to permit and even encourage. Every creator has specific interests and levels of comfort with sharing work, so it's important to take that into account when making a license choice. One person's pro could be another person's con. Different communities have varying sharing requirements, so choosing a license might need to conform with your community of interest. For example, the Free Culture community only views the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as acceptable for a work to be "free". Creative Commons has been collecting a wide variety of examples of people in music, education, and social justice, all using CC licensing for their work.
Much as we love CC licenses, they are not appropriate for all situations. CC offers a handful of possibilities to consider before you decide on a license.
First, decide what license you think the creator in each scenario would choose. Then go to the Creative Commons license chooser tool and answer the questions like you were the creator.
In each case, was the license chooser result the same license you chose? If not, what do you think happened that led to the discrepancy? Did you choose different licenses depending on the type of creator? If so, why? What was different?
Ready to CC license your own work? Try this other P2PU challenge: "Get a CC license. Put it on your website."
You are a relatively obscure musician who wants as many people to discover your music as possible, but also wants to be able to reserve the commercial right to sell your work = CC BY NC SA
You are an elementary school teacher who has created a great resource on how the solar system works, and want other teachers to benefit = CC BY SA
You are an amateur photographer who has taken photos of landmarks in your area and want them to be featured in their Wikipedia articles = CC BY SA
Re 1 - I meant CC BY-NC-SA
Re 2 - I don't know about in terms of the teacher. It depends. There are avenues for teachers to share their work without being paid and there are avenues for teachers to sell their work to other teachers. I can see educators using a range of CC licenses. If an educator soley wants to share her work with other educators, then perhaps the best license is CC BY-SA.
1. CC BY-ND-NC (Attribution - No Derivatives - Non-Commercial
2. CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution - Non-Commercial - Share Alike) No commercial because making money from someone else's hard work in the education field is immoral. In my experience educators love finding new ideas that have worked for others and if no-one can make money out of them they will stay free (and free to use).
3. CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution - No Derivatives - Non-Commercial)
RE 2 -- Interesting that you would say this. There has been a debate about the NC condition since the beginning of time, but a lot of people in the open education world firmly support CC BY or CC BY-SA for OER, as evidenced by the default license on this site (p2pu.org). You can read more about dif POVs at the Why Open? course if interested!
Initially I chose CC BY NC SA. When I was using the 'Choose A License' tool, I realized that the musician could also use CC BY NC if he or she wasn't worried about derivatives of their work being commercialized but I think that CC BY NC SA makes the most sense for this situation.
2. I chose: CC BY SA initially. When I used the 'Choose A License' tool, I realized that the teacher could also use CC BY to allow maximum freedom. However, if they want all teachers to be able to use the resource, they may not want to allow any work that builds on her resource to be restricted so she could also use CC BY NC SA.
3. I chose CC BY SA for the pictures on Wikipedia articles because that's the default license on the Wikipedia website. When I used the 'Choose A License' tool it occured to me that CC BY could also be used. I feel as an amateur photographer, it's more important to get your work out to the world and recognized rather than worry about revenue, since it's probably not going to happen anyway.
When to include the Non-Commercial restriction confuses me. If something is licensed as CC BY SA, does that mean that any derivative work can't be commercialized since the original work is licensed as "attribution only, share alike"? Or can works licensed as CC BY SA be commercialized by others who are not the creator?
For the musician:
Este obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 3.0 Unported.
For the teacher:
Este obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 3.0 Unported.
For the photographer:
Este obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 3.0 Unported.
This is a great exercise. We had the discussion with our teenage kids on the way home from a concert of an avant garde sax player. How would he copyright his music since he would have a vested interest is getting it heard by as many people as possible? (Or really, was it okay to rip the CDs and give them to a bunch of jazz playing friends?)
for the musician
BY, NC, SA
for the school teacher
for the photographer
1. Attribution Non-commercial-Sharealike. To gain exposure the artist will want anyone to use the work, remix, or extend it as well as to share it out. But he/she will want the license to be non-commerical so that the possiblity of using the work commercially remains in his/her hands.
2. Educator may choose to have the work completely open, only requring attribution. This allows for the most distribution of the work, which is a goal of education. Share, share, share.
Or the educator might choose Attribution-Sharealike to help ensure that the work, however, it is modified or remixed continues to be shared openly.
Wkipedia is built on the premise of open culture and sharing. Users of the photographs have to give attribution, but they also have to share them with the same license. This helps to keep open content, open.
1. The recommendable license for the musician is an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs, with an International Jurisdiction (The question does not specify whether the musician wants to give permission for its compositions to be modified, but I assume he/she doesn't. It depends very much on the music genre).
2. In this case, because it's a creation with educational purposes, I would choose an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. Since it's an educational resource, derivations/modification should be allowed for the particular class that is using it. The jurisdiction would also be up to the teacher, but if it's a very region-specific educational resource, then it would be better to ascribe it to the country where it will be used.
3. A creation for Wikipedia should have an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.