Creative Commons ( CC ) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted work. A CC license is used when an author wants to give people the right to share, use, and build upon a work that they have created. CC provides an author flexibility (for example, they may choose to allow only non-commercial uses of his / her own work) and protects the people who use or redistribute them as long as they abide by the conditions Which are in the license by which the author distributes the work.

There are several types of CC licenses. The licenses differ by several combinations that condition the terms of distribution. They were initially released on December 16, 2002 by Creative Commons , a US non-profit corporation founded in 2001. There have also been five versions of the suite of licenses, numbered 1.0 through 4.0. [1] As of July 2017 , the 4.0 license suite is the most current.

In October 2014 the Open Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative Commons CC BY , CC BY-SA , and CC0 licensing conforming with the ” Open Definition ” for content and data. [2] [3] [4]

Applicable works

Work licensed under a Creative Commons license copyright law. [5] This is a free and easy to use copyrighted book, which includes all the books, plays, movies, music, articles, photographs, blogs, and websites. Creative Commons license Creative Commons licenses for software. [6]

There are over 35,000 jobs that are available in hardcopy and have a registered ISBN number. Creative Commons License: Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported [7]

HOWEVER, implementation of a Creative Commons license May not modify the rights allowed by fair use or fair dealing or Exert qui restrictions violate copyright exceptions. [8] Furthermore, Creative Commons licenses are non-exclusive and non-revocable. [9] Any work or copies of the work under a Creative Commons license may continue to be used under that license. [10]

In the case of works protected by multiple Creative Common licenses, the user may choose either. [11]

Types of licenses

Wanna Work Together?Animation by Creative Commons
The second release of the Mayer and Bettle promotional Animation Explains what Creative Commons is
Creative Commons License Spectrum between public domain (top) and all rights reserved(bottom). The right side of the license components. The dark green area indicates Free Cultural Workscompatible licenses, the two green areas compatibility with the Remix culture .
CC license usage in 2014 (top and middle), “Free cultural works” compatible license 2010 to 2014 (bottom)

The CC licenses all grant the “baseline rights”, such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide for non-commercial purposes, and without modification. [12] The details of each of these licenses depend on the version, and include a selection of four conditions:

icon right Description
Attribution(BY) Licensees May copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it and remixes If They only give the author or licensor the credits ( allocation ) in the Manner specified by thesis.
Share-alike(SA) Licensees may distribute derivatives works only under a license identical (“not more restrictive”) to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft .) Without share-alike, derivative works could be sublicensed with compatible but more restrictive license clauses, eg CC BY to CC BY-NC.
Non-commercial (NC) Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works and remixes based on it only for non-commercialpurposes.
No Derivative Works (ND) Verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works and remixes based on it.

[13]

The last two clauses are not free content licenses, according to definitions such as DFSG or the Free Software Foundation’s standards, and can not 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 . [14]

Mixing and matching these conditions produces sixteen possible combinations, of which eleven are valid. 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, [15] [16] [17] This leaves six regularly used licenses + the CC0 public domain waiver :

Seven regularly used licenses

icon Description Acronym Allows Remix culture Allows commercial use Allows Free Cultural Works Meets ‘ Open Definition ‘
Freeing content globally without restrictions CC0 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Attribution alone BY Yes Yes Yes Yes
Attribution + ShareAlike BY-SA Yes Yes Yes Yes
Attribution + Noncommercial BY-NC Yes No. No. No.
Attribution + NoDerivatives BY-ND No. Yes No. No.
Attribution + Noncommercial + ShareAlike BY-NC-SA Yes No. No. No.
Attribution + Noncommercial + NoDerivatives BY-NC-ND No. No. No. No.

[17] [18]

For example, the Creative Commons Attribution (BY) license to create a derivative works, even for commercial use, so long as attribution is given. [19]

Version 4.0 and international use

Main article: Creative Commons

The original non-localized Creative Commons licenses were written with the US legal system in mind, therefore the wording may be incompatible with local legislation in other jurisdictions , rendering the unenforceable licensing there. To address this issue, its affiliates Creative Commons Asked to translate the various licenses to Reflect local laws in a process called ” porting .” [20] As of July 2011, Creative Commons licenses have been ported to over 50 jurisdictions worldwide. [21]

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. [22] [23] [24] [25] No new ports have been implemented in version 4.0 of the license. [26] Version 4.0 discourages using a single global license. [27]

Rights

Attribution

Since 2004, all current licenses require the attribution of the original author, the BY component. [16] The attribution must be given to “the best of [one’s] ability using the information available”. [28] Generally this implies the following:

  • Include any copyright notices (if applicable) . If the work itself contains any copyrighted material, it should 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 so a page exists.
  • Cite the work’s title or name , 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 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, eg, “This is a Finnish translation of [original work] by [author].” Or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”

Non-commercial licenses

The “non-commercial” option included In Some Creative Commons licenses is controversial in definition, [29] as it is Sometimes unclear what can be regarded a non-commercial setting, and application, since icts restrictions Differ from the principles of open content Promoted By other permissive licenses . [30] In 2014 Wikimedia Deutschland published a guide to using Creative Commons licensing wiki pages for translations and as PDF. [31]

Zero / public domain

Creative Commons Public Domain Mark . Indicates works that have already fallen into the public domain.

Besides licenses, Creative Commons also offers through CC0 a way to release material worldwide into the public domain . [18] CC0 is a legal tool for waiving as many rights as legally possible. [33] However, when not legally possible, CC0 acts as fallback as public domain license . [33] Development of CC0 began in 2007 [34] and the tool was released in 2009. [35] [36] A major target of the license was the scientific data community. [37]

In 2010, Creative Commons announced its Public Domain Mark , [38] a tool for labeling works already in the public domain. Together, CC0 and the Public Domain Mark replace the Public Domain Dedication and Certification, [39] which took a US-centric approach and co-mingled distinct operations.

In 2011, the Free Software Foundation added CC0 to its free software licenses , [40] and currently recommends CC0 as the preferred method of releasing software into the public domain . [41]

In February 2012 CC0 was submitted to Open Source Initiative (OSI) for their approval. [42] However, the term “license” means a term used to describe a license. This clause was added with the help of scientific data, 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. [37] [43]

In 2013, Unsplash began using the CC0 license to distribute free stock photography . [44] [45] It now Distributes Several million pictures a month [46] and HAS inspired a host of similar sites Including CC0 CC0 photography companies and blogging companies. [47] Lawrence Lessig , the founder of Creative Commons, has contributed to the site. [48] dead link ]

In October 2014 the Open Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative Commons CC0 as conformant with the “Open Definition” and recommend the license to dedicate content to the public domain. [3] [4]

Adaptation

A license compatibility chart for combining or mixing two CC licensed works

Rights in an adaptation may be expressed by a CC which is compatible with the status or licensing of the original work or works on which the adaptation is based. [49]

Legal aspects

Creative Commons License: Creative Commons License: Creative Commons License: Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution Creative Commons license Creative Commons license Creative Commons license Creative Commons license Creative Commons license Creative Commons license Creative Commons license Creative Commons license Creative Commons [50]

Some works licensed using Creative Commons licenses have been involved in several short cases. [51] Creative Commons Creative Commons license. Creative Commons public licenses. All rights reserved. All rights reserved. Here are some notable cases:

Dutch tabloid

In early 2006, Adam Curry podcaster 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, the creator of the Dutch CC and the 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 Content licensed under it, and binds users of such content even without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of the license. ”

Virgin Mobile

In 2007, Virgin Mobile Australia launched an Australian bus stop ad 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 awarded credit, without any other compensation required. Virgin upheld this single restriction by printing a URL to the photographer’s Flickr page on each of their ads. Alison Chang at a fund-raising carwash for her church, [56] 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. [56] In 2008, the case (regarding personality rights as copyright as such) was thrown out of a Texas court for lack of jurisdiction. [57] [58]

SGAE vs Fernández

In the fall of 2006, the collecting society The Society of Authors and 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 was not managed by the society. [59]

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 with the complaint [SGAE], using a directory of authors who have not SGAE, in charge of the cultural programming of the association, and the participation of its members in the development of the SGAE,

GateHouse Media, Inc. vs. That’s Great News, LLC

On June 30, 2010 GateHouse Media filed a lawsuit against That’s Great News . The Rockford Register Star , which is based in Rockford, Illinois. That’s Great News makes plates out of newspaper articles and sells them to the people featured in the articles. [61] GateHouse sued That’s Great News for copyright infringement and breach of contract. GateHouse claimed that TGN violated the non-commercial and no-derivative works restrictions on GateHouse Creative Commons licensed when TGN published the material on its website. The case was settled on August 17, 2010, though the settlement was not made public. [61] [62]

Drauglis c. Kappa Map Group, LLC

The plaintiff was photographer Art Drauglis Flickr using Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License (CC BY-SA), including “Swain’s Lock, Montgomery Co., MD.”. The defendant was Kappa Map Group, a map-making company, which downloaded the image and used it in a compilation entitled “Montgomery Co. Maryland Street Atlas”. Though There Was nothing on the cover That Indicated the origin of the picture, the text ” Photo: Swain’s Lock, Montgomery Co., MD Photographer: Carly Lesser & Art Drauglis, Creative Commoms [ sic ] , CC-BY-SA-2.0 ” At the bottom of the back cover.

The validity of the CC BY-SA 2.0 as a license was not in dispute. The CC BY-SA 2.0 requires the licensee to use nothing less restrictive than the CC BY-SA 2.0 terms. The atlas was sold commercially and not for free by others. The dispute was whether “derivatives works” applied to the entire atlas. Drauglis sued the defendants on June 2014 for copyright infringement and license breach, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, fees, and costs. Drauglis asserted, among other things, that the Kappa Map Group “exceeded the scope of the license because it did not publish the Atlas under a license with the same or similar terms as those under which the Photograph was originally licensed.” [63] The judge dismissed the case on that count, Ruling that the atlas was not a derivative work of the photograph in the sense of the license. Since the atlas was not a derivative work of the photograph, Kappa Map Group did not need to license the entire atlas under CC BY-SA 2.0 license. The judge also determined that the work had been properly attributed. [64]

Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VGSE)

This incident has not been tested in short, but it highlights a potentially disturbing practice. In July 2016, German computer magazine LinuxUser reports that a German blogger Christoph Langner used two CC-BY licensed photographs from Berlin photographer Dennis Skley on his private blog Linuxundich.de . Langner duly mentioned the author and the license and added a link to the original. Langner Was later contacted by the Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VGSE) (Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Internet) with a demand for € 2300 for failing to Provide the full name of the work, the full name of the Author, the license text, and a source link, As is required by the fine print in the license. Of this sum, € 40 goes to the photographer and is retained by VGSE. [65] [66]

Works with a Creative Commons license

Creative Commons Maintains a happy directory wiki of organisms and projects using Creative Commons licenses. [67] On its website CC also provides case studies of projects using CC licenses across the world. [68] CC licensed content can also be accessed through a number of content directories and search engines (see CC licensed content directories ).

Retired licenses

Due to either disuse or criticism, a number of creative commons licenses have since been retired, [15] [69] and are no longer recommended for new works. The retiring licenses include all licenses lacking the Attribution element other than CC0, as well as the following four licenses:

  • Developing Nations License : a license qui 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. [70]
  • Sampling :  Translations to be translated into English
  • Sampling Plus : Part of the work can be copied and modified for any purpose other than advertising, and the entire work can be copied for noncommercial purposes [72]
  • NonCommercial Sampling Plus : the whole work or parts of the work can be copied and modified for non-commercial purposes [73]

See also

  • Free software portal
  • Free culture movement
  • Free music
  • Free software
  • Non-commercial educational

References

  1. Jump up^ “License Versions – Creative Commons” . Wiki.creativecommons.org . Retrieved July 4, 2017 .
  2. Jump up^ Open Definition 2.1on opendefinition.org
  3. ^ Jump up to:b licenses on opendefinition.com
  4. ^ Jump up to:b Creative Commons 4.0 BY and BY-SA licenses approved complying with the Open Definition by Timothy Vollmer is creativecommons.org (December 27th, 2013)
  5. Jump up^ “Creative Commons Legal Code” . Creative Commons . January 9, 2008 . Retrieved February 22, 2010 .
  6. Jump up^ “Creative Commons License: Creative Commons License: . Wiki.creativecommons.org. July 29, 2013 . Retrieved September 20, 2013 .
  7. Jump up^ “Books – Creative Commons” . Wiki.creativecommons.org . Retrieved 2016-04-01 .
  8. Jump up^ “Do Creative Commons licensing exceptions and limitations to copyright, such as fair dealing and fair use?” . Frequently Asked Questions – Creative Commons . Retrieved July 26, 2015 .
  9. Jump up^ “What if I change my mind about using a CC license?” . Frequently Asked Questions – Creative Commons . Retrieved July 26, 2015 .
  10. Jump up^ “What happens if the author decides to revoke the CC license to material I am using?” . Frequently Asked Questions – Creative Commons . Retrieved July 26, 2015 .
  11. Jump up^ “How do CC licenses operate?” . Frequently Asked Questions – Creative Commons . Retrieved July 26, 2015 .
  12. Jump up^ “Baseline Rights” . Creative Commons . June 12, 2008 . Retrieved February 22, 2010 .
  13. Jump up^ “What are Creative Commons licenses?” . Frequently Asked Questions – Creative Commons . Retrieved July 26, 2015 .
  14. Jump up^ “Creative Commons GNU LGPL” . Archived from the originalon June 22, 2009 . Retrieved July 20, 2009 .
  15. ^ Jump up to:b “Retired Legal Tools” . Creative Commons . Archived from the original on May 3, 2016 . Retrieved May 31, 2012 .
  16. ^ Jump up to:b “Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses” . Creativecommons.org. May 25, 2004 . Retrieved September 20,2013 .
  17. ^ Jump up to:b “About The Licenses – Creative Commons” . Creative Commons . Retrieved July 26, 2015 .
  18. ^ Jump up to:b “CC0” . Creative Commons . Retrieved February 22, 2010 .
  19. Jump up^ “Creative Commons – Attribution 3.0 United States” . Creative Commons . November 16, 2009 . Retrieved February 22, 2010 .
  20. Jump up^ Murray, Laura (2014). Putting intellectual property in its place: rights discourses, creative labor, and the everyday . Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 25. ISBN  0-19-933626-1 .
  21. Jump up^ “Worldwide” . Creative Commons.
  22. Jump up^ Peters, Diane (November 25, 2013). “CC’s Next Generation Licenses – Welcome Version 4.0!” . Creative Commons . Retrieved November 26, 2013 .
  23. Jump up^ “What’s new in 4.0?” . Creative Commons . 2013 . Retrieved November 26, 2013 .
  24. Jump up^ “CC 4.0, an end to porting Creative Commons licenses?” . TechnoLlama. September 25, 2011 . Retrieved August 11, 2013 .
  25. Jump up^ Doug Whitfield (August 5, 2013). “Music Manumit Lawcast with Jessica Coates of Creative Commons” . YouTube . Retrieved August 11, 2013 .
  26. Jump up^ “CC Affiliate Network” . Creative Commons . Retrieved July 8,2011 .
  27. Jump up^ “Frequently Asked Questions: What if CC licenses have not been ported to my jurisdiction?” . Creative Commons . Retrieved November 26, 2013 .
  28. Jump up^ “Frequently Asked Questions” . Creative Commons . February 2, 2010 . Retrieved February 22, 2010 .
  29. Jump up^ “Defining Noncommercial report published” . Creativecommons.org . Retrieved September 20, 2013 .
  30. Jump up^ “The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License” . Freedomdefined.org. August 26, 2013. Retrieved September 20, 2013 .
  31. Jump up^ Till Kreutzer (2014). Open Content – A Practical Guide to Using Creative Commons Licenses (PDF) . Wikimedia Deutschland eaISBN  978-3-940785-57-2 . Retrieved March 23, 2015 .
  32. Jump up^ “Downloads” . Creative Commons. 2015-12-16 . Retrieved 2015-12-24 .
  33. ^ Jump up to:b {{cite web | url = https://rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/cc0-analysis-kreuzer.pdf%7Ctitle=Validity of the Creative Commons Zero 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication and its usability for bibliographic metadata from the perspective of German Copyright Law] by Dr. Till Kreutzer, attorney-at-law in [[Berlin, Germany]
  34. Jump up^ “Creative Commons Launches CC0 and CC + Programs”(Press release). Creative Commons . December 17, 2007 . Retrieved February 22, 2010 .
  35. Jump up^ Baker, Gavin (January 16, 2009). “Report from CC board meeting” . Open Access News . Retrieved February 22, 2010 .
  36. Jump up^ “Expanding the Public Domain: Part Zero” . Creativecommons.org . Retrieved September 20, 2013 .
  37. ^ Jump up to:b Christopher Allan Webber. “CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process” . In the Open Source Initiative License review mailing list . Archived from the original on 2015-09-06 . Retrieved February 24, 2012 .
  38. Jump up^ “Marking and Tagging the Public Domain: An Invitation to Comment” . Creativecommons.org. August 10, 2010 . Retrieved September 20, 2013 .
  39. Jump up^ “Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain Certification” . Creative Commons . August 20, 2009 . Retrieved February 22, 2010 .
  40. Jump up^ “Using CC0 for public domain software” . Creative Commons . April 15, 2011 . Retrieved May 10, 2011 .
  41. Jump up^ “Various Licenses and Comments about Them” . GNU Project . Retrieved April 4, 2015 .
  42. Jump up^ Carl Boettiger. “OSI for Creative Commons Zero License?” . In the Open Source Initiative License review mailing list . Opensource.org . Retrieved February 1, 2012 .
  43. Jump up^ The Open Source Initiative FAQ. “What about the Creative Commons” CC0 “(” CC Zero “) public domain dedication? Is that open source?” . Opensource.org . Retrieved May 25, 2013 .
  44. Jump up^ “Unsplash is a full site of free images for your next splash page” . The Next Web . Retrieved 2015-11-13 .
  45. Jump up^ “License | Unsplash” . Unsplash.com . Retrieved 2015-11-13 .
  46. Jump up^ “Why Building Something Useful For Others Is The Best Marketing There Is” . Fast Company . Retrieved 2015-11-13 .
  47. Jump up^ “Blogstock is building the Shutterstock or Unsplash of written content – Startup Daily” . Startup Daily . Retrieved 2015-11-13 .
  48. Jump up^ “Lawrence Lessig | Unsplash Book” . Book.unsplash.com . Retrieved 2015-11-13 .
  49. Jump up^ “Frequently Asked Questions” . CC Wiki . Retrieved March 25,2014 .
  50. Jump up^ Katz, Zachary (2005). “Pitfalls of Open Licensing: An Analysis of Creative Commons Licensing”. IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review . 46 (3): 391.
  51. Jump up^ “Creative Commons Case Law” . Retrieved August 31, 2011 .
  52. Jump up^ “Creative Commons license upheld by short” . News.cnet.com. Retrieved December 24, 2012 .
  53. Jump up^ Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My Ipod – Matthew Rimmer – Google Böcker . Books.google.se . Retrieved December 24, 2012 .
  54. Jump up^ “Creative Commons License Upheld by Dutch Court” . Groklaw . March 16, 2006 . Retrieved September 2, 2006 .
  55. Jump up^ “Creative Commons Licenses Enforced in Dutch Court” . Retrieved August 31, 2011 .
  56. ^ Jump up to:b Cohen, Noam. “Use My Photo? Not Without Permission.” . New York Times . Retrieved September 25, 2007 . One moment, Alison Chang, has 15-year-old student from Dallas, is cheerfully goofing around at a local church-sponsored car wash, posing with a friend for a photo. Alison appears on a Billboard in Adelaide as part of a Virgin mobile advertising campaign.
  57. Jump up^ Evan Brown (January 22, 2009). “No personal jurisdiction over Australian defendant in Flickr right of publicity case” . Internet Cases, a blog about law and technology. Archived from the original on July 13, 2011 . Retrieved September 25, 2010 .
  58. Jump up^ “Lawsuit Against Virgin Mobile and Creative Commons – FAQ”. Retrieved August 31, 2011 .
  59. Jump up^ Mia Garlick (March 23, 2006). “Spanish Court Recognizes CC-Music” . Creative Commons . Retrieved September 25, 2010 .
  60. Jump up^ “Sentencia nº 12/2006 Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 5 of Madrid | Derecho of Internet” (in Spanish). Derecho-internet.org . Retrieved 2015-12-24 .
  61. ^ Jump up to:b Evan Brown (July 2, 2010). “New Copyright Lawsuit Involves Creative Commons” . Internet Cases: A blog about law and technology . Retrieved April 20, 2012 .
  62. Jump up^ CMLP Staff (August 5, 2010). “GateHouse Media vs. That’s Great News” . Citizen Media Law Project . Retrieved April 20,2012 .
  63. Jump up^ “Memorandum Opinion” (PDF) . United States District Court for the District of Columbia. August 18, 2015 . Retrieved August 29, 2016 .
  64. Jump up^ Guadamuz, Andres. “US Court interprets copyleft clause in Creative Commons licenses” . TechnoLlama . Retrieved 10 December 2015 .
  65. Jump up^ Luther, Jörg (July 2016). “Kleingedrucktes – Editorial” [Fine print – Editorial]. LinuxUser (in German) (07/2016). ISSN  1615-4444 . Retrieved 2016-09-09 .
  66. Jump up^ See also: “Abmahnung des Verbandes zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VSGE)” [Note from the Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Internet (VSGE)] (in German). Hannover, Germany: Feil Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft. 8 January 2014 . Retrieved 2016-09-09 .
  67. Jump up^ “Content Directories” . Creativecommons.org . Retrieved April 24, 2009 .
  68. Jump up^ “Case Studies” . Creative Commons . Retrieved December 20, 2011 .
  69. Jump up^ Lessig, Lawrence (June 4, 2007). “Retiring standalone DevNations and one sampling license” . Creative Commons . Retrieved July 5, 2007 .
  70. Jump up^ “Developing Nations License” . Creative Commons . Retrieved April 9, 2012 .
  71. Jump up^ “Sampling 1.0” . Creative Commons . Retrieved April 9, 2012 .
  72. Jump up^ “Sampling Plus 1.0” . Creative Commons . November 13, 2009. Retrieved April 9, 2012 .
  73. Jump up^ “NonCommercial Sampling Plus 1.0” . Creative Commons . November 13, 2009 . Retrieved April 9, 2012 .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *