Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/59

- 46 - CHAPTER 3 The first of these statements explains a basic limitation of the licenses in controlling what people do with the work, and the second statement provides a warning that there may be other rights at play with the work that restrict how it is used.

CC licenses are appropriate for creators who have created something protectable by copyright, such as an image, an article, or a book, and who want to provide people with one or more of the permissions governed by copyright law. For example, if you want to give others permission to freely copy and redistribute your work, you can use a CC license to grant those permissions. Likewise, if you want to give others permission to freely transform, alter, or otherwise create derivative works based on your work, you can use a CC license to grant those permissions.

However, you don’t need to use a Creative Commons license to give someone permission to read your article or watch your video, because reading and watching aren’t activities that copyright generally regulates.

Here are two more important scenarios in which a user does not need a copyright license:
 * When fair use, fair dealing, or some other limitation and exception to copyright applies (see the relevant FAQ at https://creativecommons.org/faq/#do-creative-commons-licenses-affect-exceptions-and-limitations-to-copyright-such-as-fair-dealing-and-fair-use).
 * When the work is in the public domain (see the relevant FAQ at https://creativecommons.org/faq/#may-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-a-work-in-the-public-domain).

Can you think of reasons why someone might try to apply a CC license to a work that is not covered by copyright in their own country? Or reasons why a CC licensor might expect attribution every time their work is used, even for a use that is not prohibited by copyright law?

These users might be trying to exert control that they do not actually have by law. But more likely than not, they simply don’t know that copyright does