Digital Me-I and Creative Commons



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

I chose to add a CC-BY-NC-ND (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.) license to my entire blog. I decided to license the entire website with Creative Commons because it was too hard to pick just one artifact. I felt that if I’m creating this space in public, I’d offer all of it, anything that I’m creating or writing about.

BY – I’d like attribution if someone wants to reuse my work.

NC – not that I think anyone could make any money off what I’ve made or said, I chose this option to minimize that option. 

ND -I use some images from which according to the license agreement (Part 1, C, V.)  I can’t “Resell, redistribute, provide access to, share or transfer any Visual Content except as specifically provided herein.” I can’t grant someone the option to make a derivative of the work because I may not have the right to grant permission if they want to use one of the images I have posted.

Choosing this option is a precaution. If I were selecting only one of my creations and the images or graphics were things that I created, I’d have no problem with choosing more liberal licensing features. Allowing for adaptations? Sure. I would make sure to select the share and share alike option. Allowing for commercial uses? I’m still not sure I’d give up this control. I’d want to make sure I had a say in how it was being used.

Scenario 1 (propert usage)

Let’s say that the UAS Cooperative Extension service saw my Canva Infographic on making Kelp Rhubarb Chutney back in Collection I. Based on my creative commons license attribution, they should know that they could right-click on the image to save it to their computer. They could add it on their website, giving me attribution. Since they are a non-profit unit and aren’t a commercial entity they are following the non-commercial requirement. Since they are sharing the entire image, and not an individual image or only the beautifully crafted wording, they are not making a derivation thus following the no derivation requirement. If one of these images were taken from Shutterstock (in this case there isn’t one) I would have included the proper attribution embedded within the image. Everyone is happy

Scenario 2 (improper usage)

The Rockin’ Rhubarb Ranch sees this same infographic and loves it so much that they make a transfer out of it to make t-shirts, sweatshirts, shower curtains, tote bags, aprons, beach towels, condom packaging, and S&M leather vests. And maybe they love the rhubarb image so they use just this image for all of their website and print advertising. All of a sudden the “Vote for Pedro” items are no longer popular and everyone wants “Kickin’ it Kelp Rhubarb Chutney from the Rockin’ Rhubarb Ranch” on everything. Perhaps they give me attribution so I eventually find out about it.

  1. they are a commercial entity and I haven’t given them permission to use it for commercial purposes
  2. they have taken a derivative of the work by using only the rhubarb image for which I haven’t given permission.
  3. in the positive, they have given me attribution, but in this case I might not want it since I’m not making any money on it.

What could I do?

  • Send the company a cease and desist letter.
  • Sue for copyright infringement
  • Come up with a licensing fee amount and ask the company to pay for it and kindly remove the attribution. Maybe I could ask for the merchandise of the cool logowear in exchange for the fee.
  • Blog and tweet about the injustice and what a terrible company the Rockin’ Rhubarb Ranch is.
  • Do nothing.

What would I do?

  • Laugh, because I left out a few key ingredients when I wrote the recipe because I ran out of room on the graphic. Anyone who makes this will think the Rockin’ Rhubarb Ranch has terrible taste. All the while wearing my ‘Vote for Pedro’ t-shirt.

note: just happen to be listening the “Under Pressure” by Queen while writing this post.


  1. Sometimes you just have to laugh (both as a remedy for improper use and the fact that you’re listening to “Under Pressure” while composing your post.

    I’ve gone with a paired approach: contact and try to contact the entity with the idea that they may have innocently made a mistake…and then use the network to condemn and destroy them if they don’t respond positively (or at all). In the latter case it helps if you enlist your most connected Tweeps and blogfriends to help get the word out.

    Well done with your scenarios…you even made it interesting.

    Vote for Pedro!

Leave a Reply

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