Appearance
Use RightsStatements.org when you need to communicate the copyright status of a work in a standardised, machine-readable way — especially for items you do not own and therefore cannot license. Reach for Creative Commons instead when you hold copyright and want to grant permissions. The two are complementary: RightsStatements describes status; CC grants rights. Knowing which job you are doing tells you which vocabulary to apply.
What problem does RightsStatements.org actually solve?
It solves the "in copyright but not mine" gap that CC cannot fill. A photograph still under copyright by an unknown holder cannot carry a CC licence, but it still needs an honest, interoperable label so aggregators and users understand they cannot freely reuse it. RightsStatements.org provides 12 standardised statements with stable URIs in three buckets — In Copyright, No Copyright, and Other — designed for exactly this descriptive role.
When should I choose it over Creative Commons?
Decide by asking one question: am I describing status or granting permission?
| Your situation | Use this |
|---|---|
| Work in copyright, I'm not the holder | RightsStatements.org (InC family) |
| Status genuinely unknown | RightsStatements.org (UND) |
| Public domain, just stating the fact | RightsStatements.org (NoC-* / NKC) |
| I hold copyright, want to allow reuse | Creative Commons (BY, BY-SA…) |
| I want to waive all my rights | CC0 |
If you find yourself reaching for CC on a work you don't own, that is the signal to switch to RightsStatements.org.
Which of the 12 statements fits a given item?
The most-used values in heritage practice:
text
InC In Copyright
InC-OW-EU In Copyright - EU Orphan Work
InC-RUU In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable
InC-EDU In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted
NoC-US No Copyright - United States
NoC-CR No Copyright - Contractual Restrictions
CNE Copyright Not Evaluated
UND Copyright UndeterminedPair each with its URI so it is machine-actionable. For an orphan, InC-RUU is correct; for an item you simply haven't assessed yet, CNE; for one assessed but unresolved, UND.
How do I implement it in metadata?
Always emit the canonical URI, not prose, because Europeana and the DPLA match on the URI:
xml
<edm:rights rdf:resource="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/"/>json
{
"rights": "http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/",
"rightsNote": "Author death date not confirmed; under review."
}The free-text note is for humans; the URI is for machines. Never ship only the note.
When is RightsStatements.org the wrong tool?
It is descriptive, not legal — so do not use it where you genuinely need a licence. If you own the copyright and want third parties to reuse, copy, or remix the work, a RightsStatements value gives them no permission; you must apply CC or your own licence. Likewise, do not use it to assert restrictions over public-domain material — that is copyfraud. And remember it is not jurisdiction-specific beyond the few US-flagged statements, so pair it with your own territory note where that matters.
Key Takeaways
- RightsStatements.org describes status; Creative Commons grants permissions — pick by job.
- There are 12 standardised statements in three groups, each with a stable URI.
- Use it for in-copyright, orphaned, undetermined, or public-domain items you cannot or need not license.
- Always emit the canonical URI so Europeana/DPLA can match it; free text alone is not interoperable.
- For orphans use InC-RUU; for unassessed items CNE; for assessed-but-unresolved UND.
- It is not a licence and not legally binding — don't use it to grant or fake permissions.
- It works equally for born-digital, web-archived and digitised material.
Frequently Asked Questions
When should I use RightsStatements.org instead of a Creative Commons licence?
Use RightsStatements.org when a work is still in copyright, has undetermined status, or is in the public domain and you only need to communicate that status — not grant permissions. Use Creative Commons when you actually hold copyright and want to license reuse.
How many RightsStatements.org statements are there?
There are 12 standardised statements grouped into three categories: In Copyright (7), No Copyright (3) and Other (2). Each has a stable URI and a human-readable page in multiple languages.
What is the difference between RightsStatements.org and Creative Commons?
Creative Commons licences grant permissions for works you own; RightsStatements.org statements describe the copyright status of a work, including ones you do not own and cannot license. They are complementary, not competing.
Should I use a RightsStatements URI or just free text?
Always use the canonical URI. Aggregators like Europeana and the DPLA match on the URI, so free text alone will not be machine-actionable or interoperable across platforms.
Can RightsStatements.org be used for born-digital records?
Yes. The statements are media-agnostic and apply equally to born-digital files, web archives and digitised analogue material, since they describe copyright status rather than format.
Is RightsStatements.org legally binding?
No. The statements are standardised descriptions, not legal instruments or licences. They communicate your assessment of status; the underlying law determines what users may actually do.