Choosing a licence for your own work

This chapter outlines the benefits, factors to consider and choices when deciding to apply a CC licence to your own work. The following chapter explains how to apply your chosen licence.

The benefits of using CC licences

CC licences underpin open access, open education and open scholarship by providing a legally robust and fair approach to copyright management on the internet.

CC licences ensure creators are acknowledged, sources are identified and integrity is protected, while still encouraging widespread dissemination. In addition to mandatory attribution, the optional non-commercial and no-derivative elements allow creators to apply limits on reuse.

The standardised legal terms of CC licences provide clarity for users and are enforceable across jurisdictions, simplifying global content sharing. A CC licence eliminates or reduces the need for users to individually contact copyright owners to request permission to reuse a work.

Many research funders and governments recognise the benefits of open access and mandate the application of CC licences on research outputs.

When someone uses your work:

• They must comply with the licence terms.
• If the work has been changed the attribution statement must say so.
• They must not suggest or imply you agree with or endorse their use.
• You can ask for your name and attribution information to be removed.

Factors to consider

There are a number of factors and prerequisites to consider when deciding to apply a CC licence. These include:

• Funders or employers requirements or policies;
• Copyright ownership and authorisation;
• Other intellectual property;
• The nature and content of the material your are licensing.

Open Access publishing policies

Applying a CC licence may be a requirement to meet organisational and research funder policies.

Copyright ownership and authorisation

CC licences are permissions given under copyright law. To give a licence for use of a work in a manner that is restricted under copyright law, you must own the copyright.

Employers usually own the copyright of work created by their employees, so you may need authorisation to license a work. The university owns the copyright of teaching material created by Charles Sturt staff (Charles Sturt University Intellectual Property Policy).

Employment and consulting contracts and agreements should include IP ownership clauses. Ensure IP ownership is included in agreements and data management plans prior to starting projects. See Charles Sturt’s advice for researchers on contract development and negotiation.

Publishers often require transfer of copyright. Before applying a CC licence to an article in CRO or to a thesis that includes a published article, check if you either transferred copyright or agreed to an exclusive licence with the publisher. See the Managing your copyright webpage for information about publisher agreements.

Other intellectual property (IP) and ethics

Before applying a Creative Commons (CC) licence, it is important to review what forms of intellectual property your work involves and ensure you are not infringing other forms of IP.

Suitability of CC licences for the type of work

Consider the nature of the work before applying a CC licence. Keep in mind that there are other open licence options and that CC licences only apply when works are protected under copyright.

Choosing a licence

Once you have established that you own the copyright and are authorised to apply a licence, and that Creative Commons is the right fit for your work, you need to choose which rights you want to retain. Choice of licence depends on the nature of the work, why you are sharing it, and how you want others to use it. There are four elements that are combined in six different licence options plus the CC public domain dedication tool.

If your work is an adaptation, remix, or collection of other CC licenced works, then your choice of licence may be constrained by the original licence(s). However, it is possible to apply different licences to parts or sections of a work.  For more information, see Chapter 7 Derivatives, Adaptations, Remixes and Collections. 

CC Licence choosing tool

Creative Commons licence chooser has a series of simple questions to help select licence elements. You should also consider the following pros and cons of the different licence options.

  Public domain dedication

Do you have a preference for how your work is used, or can it be used for any purpose?  Is it important that you are given attribution for the work?

If you answered “no” to the above questions, then waiving your copyright with a public domain dedication may be appropriate.

Works produced exclusively or mainly by generative AI are not eligible for copyright protection. For clarity, Creative Commons encourage use of CC0 to indicate usage rights and grow public domain content (Understanding CC Licences and Generative AI, 18 August 2023).

Attribution (CC BY)

Attribution is a condition of all CC licences.

The CC BY licence lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most open of licences offered. It is recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

CC BY is recommended for scholarly works and Open Education Resources (OER).

Many research funding organisations recommend or mandate CC BY licensing of research outputs as part of their rights retention policies.

   NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

If you are working in a creative industry and relying on sales of your work for an income then you may want to consider limiting permissions to non-commercial (NC) use only. The NC element does not apply to the licensor or copyright owner, so you are still able to sell your work.

For scholarly and educational works, applying an NC element can create some unintended limitations. For example:

• NC does not qualify as open in the Open Knowledge Foundation definition of open
• NC may limit reuse options in OER and resources such as Wikipedia and Wikimedia or blog posts that include advertising.
• Derivative works such as translations cannot be sold.

Many creators assume an NC licence will prevent for-profit organisations using their work, but NC does not limit the user. It only limits how the work can be used. Revisit the commercial use scenarios in the Introduction to Creative Commons chapter.

  ShareAlike (CC BY-SA)

Share Alike (SA) are copyleft licences, meaning all derivative works and remixes must be distributed under the same licence terms. The SA element guarantees that downstream users of derivatives will be granted the same permissions as users of the original work, however it can limit opportunities for reuse because of limitations in compatibility with other copyleft licences.

The SA condition applies to adaptations so it is never combined with the No Derivative (ND) element.

SA licences are often not recommended for OER because of the limits imposed when remixing with other works. More information about remixing works under different licences is in the chapter on derivatives, adaptations and remixes.

    NonCommercial ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA)

The NC and SA elements can be combined to prohibit commercial use even when the work is revised or adapted. For example, a translation of a work licenced under CC BY-NC-SA could not be sold and must be also distributed with a CC BY-NC-SA licence.

   NoDerivative (CC BY-ND)

Licences with the No Derivative (ND) element are the most restrictive and limiting of all the CC licence options. They may be suitable if you wish to restrict adaptations, but allow sharing and copying of your work. Consider applying an ND element to images of people or works of cultural significance where adaptations may not be appropriate without oversight or express permission.

Works with ND are not considered OER because they do not permit remixing and revising.

ND is not generally considered suitable for research outputs because the process of undertaking research builds upon previous studies. Researchers need to be able to reuse and adapt the publications and data of others.  A restrictive licence limits the rapid dissemination, review and equitable access to research outputs.

   NonCommercial NoDerivative (CC BY-NC-ND)

The ND element can be combined with NC to restrict adaptations and commercial use of your work.

Licensing OA journal articles

When publishing articles in open access journals, authors are often asked to select a Creative Commons licence. Publishers sometimes limit the range of CC licences available or offer lower Author Processing Charges (APCs) for a restrictive licence (CC BY-NC-ND) and higher charges for a more open licence (CC BY).  Restrictive licences for research are not recommended by Creative Commons.

Researchers publish to be read, to have impact, and to make the world a better place. To accomplish these important goals, researchers need to enable reuse and adaptations of their research publications and data. They also need to be able to reuse and adapt the publications and data of others (Vézina, 2020, para. 4).

If you have an ARC or NHMRC funding grant you may be required to select a CC BY licence.

If you are publishing under a library Open Access Publishing Agreement, you are obliged to choose the most open licence suitable for your work, taking into account Indigenous IP and disciplinary needs. Publishers are expected to apply CC BY by default (CAUL Agreement Principles for Journals, 2024, [PDF 166 KB] p. 2, point 5).

For more about open access publishing and publishing agreements see managing your copyright [webpage].

Use of works for training generative AI

Many researchers, authors and creators object to the large scale use of their IP to develop generative AI (GAI) models without consent or compensation. In response, a common reaction is to create barriers by not giving the permissions that would typically be given through open licensing.

However, copyright legislation varies by jurisdiction, and the use of copyright material is governed by the jurisdiction of the user, not the creator or owner of the material. In Australia, where training GAI or text and data mining is not permitted under the Copyright Act, conditions under a CC licence should be followed. But if training is allowed through legal copyright exceptions, then a CC licence is irrelevant. This is shown in the workflow published by Creative Commons FAQs on Artificial Intelligence and CC licences.

The main benefits of open access licences remain unchanged. Applying a restrictive licence or an ‘all rights reserved’ condition is likely to disadvantage users, who are most likely to benefit from open licensing and lead to further global inequity.

Read or listen to: “Wait, not like that”: Free and open access in the age of generative AI” [Blog / Podcast] (14th March 2025).

Numerous proposals for licensing content, signalling preferences or legislating use are in development, including Creative Commons signals.

Quotes from Creative Commons

“Though using CC licences and legal tools for training data and works produced by generative AI may address some legal uncertainty, they do not solve all the ethical concerns raised, which go far beyond copyright — involving issues of privacy, consent, bias, economic impacts, and access to and control over technology, among other things.” Understanding CC licences and generative AI, 18 August 2023.

“CC licences can grant the right to use works for AI training and impose specific restrictions, but these apply only where such permission is required under copyright law. In many jurisdictions, copyright exceptions take precedence, limiting the practical ability of CC licences to restrict or control AI training.”  Understanding CC licences and AI training: a legal primer, 15 May 2025.

Once licensed, always licensed

CC licences and CC0 (Public Domain dedications) are irrevocable.

Once you publish your work, you cannot withdraw the licence or change the terms for copies that have already been distributed. It is important to make sure you meet any prerequisites, understand the licence and feel confident with your choice before publishing. If you change your mind later, you can remove the work from your own website or platforms or release a new version under a different licence. However, any copies already downloaded can continue to be used and shared under the original licence terms and users who accessed the work under that licence retain the permissions you granted.

Further reading

• Australian Copyright Council (2023 February) Creative Commons Licences Factsheet.
• Australian Research Data Commons. (2019, September) Research Data Rights Management Guide.
• Braak, P., de Jonge, H., Trentacosti, G., Verhagen, I., & Woutersen-Windhouwer. S. (2020). Guide to Creative Commons for Scholarly Publications and Educational Resources (final).
• Creative Commons. (n.d.) About CC Licenses.
• Creative Commons. (n.d.) FAQs for Choosing a License.
• Emilio, V. (2023 July 24) Pros and Cons of Creative Commons Licenses, Legal123.com.au
• National Forum. (2020 July 8). How to Choose an Open Licence. National Resource Hub (Ireland). – Focus on choosing licences for OER and OEP (Open Education Pedagogy).
• New Media Rights, (2015) Choosing a Creative Commons License.  – Good examples on choosing license elements for audio-visual works. 
• Open Knowledge (n.d.) Guide to Open Licensing.
• White, R. (2022 October 17) Open Access Licences Choices: Don’t Be Afraid of Open. Open Access Australasia blog.
• Vézina, B. (2020 April 21). Why Sharing Academic Publications Under ND is Misguided. Creative Commons blog.

Check your understanding

Alternative format: OA licences-ChoosingCC_MostToLeastOpen (Google docs) ↗ 

Play Licence to Share: an interactive Creative Commons game

If you’re looking for a more hands-on and fun experience when choosing a CC licence, try Licence to Share, a choose-your-own adventure game where every choice shows how your work can be shared. Review your choices with the Creative Commons Licence Chooser before finalising your decision.

Launch the game in a new tab.