Appearance
Most Creative Commons problems in heritage collections come from one root cause: applying a copyright licence to something you do not hold copyright in. CC licences only bite where a copyright exists, so the fix for the majority of errors is to diagnose the actual rights layer first, then choose the matching tool — a CC licence for material you own, the Public Domain Mark or CC0 for material that is free. This guide walks the common failure modes and their corrections.
Why won't my CC licence "stick" to a public-domain work?
This is the number-one error. A CC licence is a grant of permission under copyright; if the work is public domain you have no copyright to grant, so the licence is meaningless and, worse, misleading. Slapping CC BY on a 1850 engraving implies users need your permission when they do not — a form of copyfraud.
Fix: match the tool to the status.
| Situation | Correct tool |
|---|---|
| You hold copyright and want reuse | CC BY / BY-SA / BY-NC etc. |
| Underlying work is public domain | Public Domain Mark (PDM) |
| You hold a thin/uncertain right and want to waive it | CC0 |
| In copyright, holder unknown | InC-RUU (RightsStatements.org), not CC |
My NC clause is being ignored — what went wrong?
If you applied BY-NC to a faithful flat scan of a public-domain painting and someone sells prints, the likely diagnosis is that you never had an enforceable copyright in the surrogate (Bridgeman; EU DSM Article 14). The NC restriction has no copyright to hang on.
Fix: stop asserting a licence on the surrogate and instead label it accurately. If you want any leverage, it can only come from contract terms on download, not from copyright — and many institutions deliberately choose openness here anyway.
How do I license metadata separately from images?
A frequent confusion is bundling everything under one statement. The clean pattern is to split layers:
yaml
# Object record
image_rights: "http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" # photograph still in copyright
metadata_rights: "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/" # CC0 metadata
note: "Catalogue description released CC0; image reuse requires permission."Releasing metadata under CC0 maximises aggregation into Europeana, Wikidata and research datasets, while the image keeps its own accurate statement.
Which CC version and which elements should I pick?
Always use 4.0 international. It explicitly covers sui generis database rights, is designed to work across jurisdictions without porting, and adds a 30-day cure window so a reuser who forgets attribution is not instantly in breach. For heritage, prefer the most open option your rights allow: CC BY or CC0 aggregate far better than NC/ND variants, which fragment reuse and exclude many educational and Wikimedia contexts.
How do I stop applying the wrong tool at scale?
Errors multiply when licences are assigned per-batch without a status check. Bake a decision gate into your workflow:
text
For each item:
1. Resolve underlying status (PD? in copyright? orphan?)
2. Resolve surrogate status (faithful 2D copy = usually no new right)
3. Only THEN choose: CC licence | CC0 | PDM | RightsStatements value
4. Record the reasoning, not just the labelAuditing a sample each quarter catches copyfraud before it spreads across the catalogue.
Key Takeaways
- CC licences only work where you hold copyright — never CC-license a public-domain work.
- Use the Public Domain Mark for free works and CC0 to waive a thin or uncertain right.
- Asserting restrictions on free material is copyfraud and is often unenforceable.
- License metadata separately from images — CC0 metadata aids aggregation.
- Always use CC 4.0, which handles database rights and adds a 30-day cure period.
- Prefer open terms (BY, CC0) over NC/ND, which fragment heritage reuse.
- Put a status-check gate before licence assignment and audit it quarterly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why can't I apply a CC licence to a public-domain work?
Because CC licences are copyright licences — they only work if you hold copyright. Applying CC BY to a public-domain image falsely implies the work is restricted; use the Public Domain Mark or CC0 instead, depending on whether there is any residual right to waive.
I applied CC BY-NC to a scan but it is being reused commercially — why?
If the underlying work is public domain and your scan is a faithful 2D reproduction, you likely never had a copyright to license, so the NC term is unenforceable. The fix is to label the surrogate honestly rather than assert a licence you cannot defend.
What is 'copyfraud' and how do I avoid it?
Copyfraud is asserting copyright or licence restrictions over material that is actually free for anyone to use. Avoid it by checking the underlying status first and only licensing layers you genuinely own, such as original metadata or creative photography.
Can I CC-license metadata while the images stay restricted?
Yes, and it is good practice. Release your catalogue metadata under CC0 to maximise reuse while applying a separate, accurate statement to the images. Always state the two scopes clearly so users are not confused.
Which CC version should I use?
Use the current 4.0 international licences. They handle database/sui generis rights explicitly, are jurisdiction-portable, and include a 30-day cure period for attribution slips, which earlier versions lacked.
Does CC BY require me to keep attribution forever?
Reusers must give attribution, but you as the licensor cannot revoke a CC licence once granted. Make sure you actually hold the rights before applying it, because the grant is irrevocable for that copy.