ARE THE CREATIVECOMMONS PUBLIC
DOMAIN TOOLSFIT-FOR-PURPOSE
IN THE CULTURALHERITAGE SECTOR?
A Creative Commons Needs Assessment Report

Mindet, Chritainsø by Edvard Weie, Public Domain

FOREWORD
This report showcases one of the many ways in which we at Creative Commons (CC)strive to support our global Open Culture community in realizing a vision for better
sharing of cultural heritage: we develop and steward a legal, social, and technicalinfrastructure that supports open sharing that is impactful, generative, equitable
and resilient.
For those new to CC, we are an international nonprofit organization dedicated tohelping build and sustain a thriving commons of shared knowledge and culture.
Together with an extensive member network and multiple partners, we build
capacity and infrastructure, develop practical solutions, and advocate for better
open sharing. At CC, we are always looking to improve how we respond to needs onthe ground to support better sharing. We work hard to support cultural heritage
institutions in achieving their missions, especially in the digital environment. To doso, the maintenance of our licenses and tools, focused on the communities they
serve, takes center stage.
With this report, we gain valuable insight into the unique needs and challenges of
the cultural heritage community with regard to our public domain tools: the publicdomain mark (PDM) and the public domain dedication tool (CC0). We also define
pathways to address those needs, with strategic recommendations to guide future
actions. I especially wish to thank our Open Culture team at CC for their work indeveloping this report, but the participation of over a hundred practitioners fromthe field — working in libraries, museums and archives and other areas of open
culture — underpins the unique value of this important resource.

Catherine Stihler, CEO
23 February, 2023

1

TABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORDTABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYINTRODUCTION
Creative Commons, our tools, and better sharing of cultural
heritage
Our objective: Understand the current picture of CC tools use in
the cultural heritage sector
KEY FINDINGS
Who and where are our respondents?
Top 5 reasons to open access collections
A dissimilar use of CC public domain tools across institutions
What types of content are CC tolls used with?
A small part, a significant part, or the entire collection?
Why use CC0/PDM on digital productions of public domain
works?
A reasonably good understanding in using CC tools
CC website is the No. 1 source of information on CC tools
New information materials can improve usersʼ understanding
Users are, from respondentsʼ perspective, confused about CC0
and PDM
Sharing collections and metadata with CC tools is largely
considered appropriate
Guidance and clarification top the list of ways CC Could
encourage greater tool use
Reuse tracking, credit and ethical needs not met with CC tools
Improving the tools / creating new tools with reuse tracking,ethics and institution credit
10 thought provoking statements

1
2
3
4
4

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ROADMAP FOR THE FUTURE
Get to know and understand our global community better
Raise awareness, offer guidance and build capacity
Probe unmet needs
Explore legal and technical improvements to the tools
Endnotes
Images

5
6
6
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
15
16
17
19

2

20
20
21
21
22
23
23

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To obtain a clearer picture of the use and understanding of Creative Commonsʼ(CC) public domain tools in the cultural heritage sector, in light of the diverse
barriers1 facing cultural heritage institutions (CHIs) in opening up theircollections, we performed a needs assessment with a view to developing a set ofrecommendations to ensure CCʼs tools continue to be relevant and meet thesectorʼs needs. From 1 January (Public Domain Day2) to 15 February 2022, we ran
a multilingual online survey using Google Forms to share a 50-question
questionnaire in English, French and Spanish.

•
•
•
•

With hundreds of responses to 50 questions, our survey provides us with ample
information. While it is beyond the scope of this brief report to provide in-depth
analysis of all the results, we highlight key findings that hold the potential toinform our community about the state of open culture and the role that CC
public domain tools might play in supporting it. Hereʼs a brief summary of key
findings:
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Most respondents are located in Europe and North America, more than athird work in libraries, and almost all of them share their collection openly.
The top reason to release content openly is to “increase institutionʼspresence, visibility, reach and relevance online.”
More than a fourth use both CC0 and PDM — mostly to release metadataand digital reproductions of public domain works.
While about a little less than a third share a small part of the collection with
CC0 or PDM, only about 4% share their entire collection with either tool.
About one third use CC0 because of the possibility that copyright or similar
rights may exist in the digitization of the public domain work (31.3%), whilealmost half use PDM because there are no rights to be waived or dedicatedto the public domain that would justify using CC0 (47.5%)— this seemingly
contradictory result points to the great disparity between jurisdictions on
copyright protection of reproductions of public domain works.
Close to one third feel highly confident about their understanding of how
CC0 and PDM work.
The CC website is by far the number one source of information on CC publicdomain tools.
Users are, from respondentsʼ perspective, confused about CC0 and PDM.
New information materials are likely to improve usersʼ understanding.
Sharing collections and metadata with CC public domain tools is largely
considered appropriate.

•
•
•
•

Guidance and clarification top the list of ways CC could encourage greater
tool use.
Reuse tracking, credit and ethical needs are not met with CC public domain
tools — new or improved tools could address them.
About two thirds find the legal jargon used in the CC public domain tools
complicated or are neutral about it.
More than half understand the difference between CC0 and PDM, but 28%
do not or not at all.
48% find determining the copyright or public domain status of works incollections difficult.
About one third do not know which of CC0 or PDM is better to use to release
digital reproductions of items in collections.
29% are afraid of what might happen when releasing content into the
public domain.
72% see how CC public domain tools can make a difference in how theinstitution shares its collection.
77% think CC0 and PDM could be combined to simplify how to mark publicdomain materials or are neutral about it.
21% believe that releasing content into the public domain will enable their
institutions to be more financially sustainable.
29% are of the view that CC public domain tools do not take account of
cultural or ethical concerns that are important for their institution.

Based on the above findings, we developed recommendations to address someof the most pressing needs in four steps:
•
•
•
•

3

Step 1: Get to know and understand our global community better
Step 2: Raise awareness, offer guidance and build capacity
Step 3: Probe unmet needs
Step 4: Explore legal and technical improvements to the tools

INTRODUCTIONCREATIVE COMMONS, OUR TOOLS, AND BETTERSHARING OF CULTURAL HERITAGE
Creative Commons3 (CC) is the global non-profit organization that stewards theCC licenses and public domain tools.4 Together, these international legal
standards form the legal, social, and technical infrastructure that supports
worldwide better sharing of creative content, i.e. open sharing that is impactful,generative, equitable, sustainable and resilient.5 CCʼs public domain tools can beused to place digital content (such as images, sound, video, 3D scans, associatedmetadata, and more) into the public domain and/or indicate its public domain
status. CC provides two tools: the Public Domain Mark6 (PDM) and the CC0 (1.0
Universal) Public Domain Dedication7 (CC0). While their legal particularities
differ, both serve to indicate that there is no copyright in the content: it is in the
public domain, free for anyone to use for any purpose. Our CC0 PDM comparison
chart offers a side-by-side comparison of the two tools.8
With our Open Culture program9, we strive to propel cultural heritage institutions(CHIs) — also known as GLAMs (galleries, libraries, archives and museums) —through their digital transformation and help them achieve better sharing of
cultural heritage. Goal 3 of our 2021–2025 Strategy10 aims to: “Transform
Institutions — To make knowledge and cultural heritage assets as openly
accessible as possible.” Our tools have become the gold standard for CHIs thatare “opening up” their collections, helping navigate copyright challenges andenabling broad access and (re)use of cultural heritage across borders. We work
hard to ensure our tools are as simple, applicable, and intuitive as possible foreveryone to maximize the heritage sectorʼs potential impact. We continuously
engage in progressive opportunities to bolster innovative, user-centeredsolutions that meet the concrete needs of CHIs and their users.

Tiger in the Jungle by Paul Elie Ranson, CC04

OUR OBJECTIVE: UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT PICTURE
OF CC PUBLIC DOMAIN TOOLS USE IN THE CULTURALHERITAGE SECTOR
To obtain a clearer picture of the use and understanding of CCʼs public domain
tools in the cultural heritage sector, in light of the diverse barriers facing CHIs in
opening up their collections, we performed a needs assessment in the firstmonths of 2022. We sought to find out: how are CC public domain tools used? Arethey fit-for-purpose? What are the needs, wishes, expectations, gaps andpossible solutions related to CC011 and the Public Domain Mark12? Our ultimate
goal was to develop a set of recommendations based on the responses to suchquestions in order to ensure CCʼs public domain tools continue to be relevant
and meet the needs of the sector. From 1 January (Public Domain Day13) to 15
February 2022, we ran a multilingual online survey using Google Forms to sharea 50-question questionnaire in English, French and Spanish. Other versions of
the questionnaire were developed by members of the CC community (e.g.,
Bahasa Indonesia and Italian) but any results from those versions do not form
part of the present report. The questionnaire included both qualitative andquantitative questions.

We acknowledge the following limitations: uneven response rate acrossquestions; limited geographical scope; technical errors in the questionnaire
form; non-scientific methods, and reliance on basic data processing tools. The
full questionnaire is available in three languages.14 The survey data results areavailable in anonymized form (all identifying information as well as free fromanswers have been deleted from the public file) for further research and arereleased CC0.15

The questionnaire was targeted at practitioners and experts working in GLAMs /CHIs. We promoted the survey via a social media campaign, mailing lists (CC-run
and from partners in the field), and personal email invitations to individual
institutions. In our outreach strategy we aimed to ensure: geographic diversity
by disseminating and promoting the survey on a global level; size diversity (interms of staff number, number of visitors and collection size); openness diversity(institutions at different stages of openness (early adopters, followers, latecomers and those still contemplating open)).
Our survey questions were articulated around two main themes: (1) the state ofopen access at the institution and (2) use, understanding, information, andneeds related to public domain tools within the institution and among its users.
Questions included: What are your needs regarding CC0 and PDM? How could
these tools be improved? Could a new tool better meet these needs? For the
purposes of this survey, we relied on the following notions:••“Open access” means no-cost access that enables the public to reuse, adapt
and redistribute materials for any purpose, including commercial use.
“Content” refers to images, text, data and metadata, audio, visual oraudiovisual files, 3D scans, or other digital or digitized content.
Screenshot of Creative Commons Tweet posted on 11 January 2022 by Creative Commons

5

KEY FINDINGS
Fig. 1: List of Respondent Countries

With hundreds of responses to 50 questions, our survey provides us with ample
information. While it is beyond the scope of this brief report to provide in-depth
analysis of all the results, we highlight key findings that hold the potential toinform our community about the state of open culture and help define ourroadmap for future action.

WHO AND WHERE ARE OUR RESPONDENTS?
In total, we received 133 individual responses from 44 different countries on fivecontinents. Here are some highlights about them.
•
•
•
•
•

74% in Europe, USA and Canada
38% in the library field
36% in digital departments
90.2% share their collection online
84.5% share them openly, of which 48% share a large portion of thecollection

Our sample thus consists mainly of institutions that already practice open
access, which is consistent with our intended target group.

6

Countries

Frequency

in %Argentina
Australia
Austria
BelgiumBrazilCanadaChile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
Ethiopia
FinlandFranceGermany
GreeceIndia
IrelandIsrael
Italy
Ivory Coast

1
2
1
2
3
7
3
1
1
9
3
1
1
2
3
7
5
1
1
1
11
1

0.8%
1.5%
0.8%
1.5%
2.3%
5.3%
2.3%
0.8%
0.8%
6.8%
2.3%
0.8%
0.8%
1.5%
2.3%
5.3%
3.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
8.3%
0.8%

Japan
Kenya
MexicoNetherlands
New ZealandNigeria
Pakistan
Portugal
Qatar
RwandaSlovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
Tanzania
TurkeyUgandaUnited Kingdom
USA
Venezuela

1
3
2
4
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
3
4
1
2
1
4
11
2

0.8%
2.3%
1.5%
3.0%
1.5%
2.3%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
12.0%
2.3%
3.0%
0.8%
1.5%
0.8%
3.0%
8.3%
1.5%

Grand Total

133

100.0%

Fig. 2: Type of Institution where Respondent Works

Fig. 3: Department where Respondent Works

Virgin Forest with Sunset by Henri Rousseau, Public Domain

7

TOP 5 REASONS TO OPEN ACCESS TO COLLECTIONS
We asked about the main reasons for openly releasing online digital content
from collections. Hereʼs the top 5 (from a selection of suggested options):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Fig. 4: Reasons to Open Access to Collections (multiple answers possible)

Increase institutionʼs presence, visibility, reach and relevance online
Provide better and more equitable access to collections
Encourage the creation of new knowledge and new interpretations
Support users and their community
Enable new forms of interaction with the collections

When prompted to suggest non-listed reasons, respondents added goals around:••

PRESERVATION: “Protect and preserve the physical originals”; “Protect
physical collections from wear and tear”; “Ensure preservation of theoriginal content”
EQUITABLE ACCESS: “Provide open access and open content culturally
relevant to underserved populations”

8

A DISSIMILAR USE OF CC PUBLIC DOMAIN TOOLSACROSS INSTITUTIONSWHAT TYPES OF CONTENT ARE CC PUBLIC DOMAIN TOOLSUSED WITH?

We asked whether the institution was using CCʼs public domain tools and we got
a diverse range of responses. Many donʼt… but many more do:

CC public domain tools are used mostly to release metadata and digital
reproductions of public domain works.

•••

Fig. 6: Contexts in which Institution Uses CC0 (multiple answers possible)

About ⅓ do not use any of the CC public domain tools at all
About ¼ use both CC0 and PDM
A lot more use CC0 only (22.5%) than PDM only (9.3%)

Fig. 5: Institution Uses the CC Public Domain Tools

Fig. 7 Contexts in which Institution Uses PDM (multiple answers possible)

9A SMALL PART, A SIGNIFICANT PART, OR THE ENTIRECOLLECTION?

WHY USE CC0/PDM ON DIGITAL REPRODUCTIONS OF
PUBLIC DOMAIN WORKS?
•

While about a little less than a third of respondents share a small part of thecollection with CC0 or PDM, only about 4% share their entire collection witheither tool.

•Fig. 8: Is CC0 Used in the Release of… the Collection?

•
•
•
•
•
•

None of the collection
The entire collection
A small part of the collection
A large part of the collection
I donʼt know
Other

•

Fig. 10: When deciding which of the CC Public Domain Tools to apply, we rely
upon the following rationales: (multiple answers possible)

30%
4%
30%

•

17%
13%
6%

•

•

Fig. 9: Is PDM Used in the Release of… the Collection?

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

None of the collection
The entire collection
A small part of the collection
A large part of the collection
I donʼt know
Other

About ⅓ use CC0 because of the possibility that copyright or similar rights
may exist in the digitization of the public domain work (31.3%).
Almost half use PDM because there are no rights to be waived or dedicatedto the public domain that would justify using CC0 (47.5%).
About 14.1% admit not having a good understanding of which tool to use.

20.4%
32.3%
4.3%
25.8%
15.1%
2.2%

10

We use the PDM on digital reproductions of publicdomain works because there are no rights to be waived
or dedicated to the public domain that would justify
using CC0.
We use CC0 on digital reproductions of public domain
works because of the possibility that copyright orsimilar rights may exist in the digitization of the publicdomain work.Do you find PDM easy to apply tocontent?
We do not have a good understanding of which tool to
use.
Other

41.5%

31.3%

27.3%
14.1%

A REASONABLY GOOD UNDERSTANDING
OF USING CC PUBLIC DOMAIN TOOLSCC WEBSITE IS THE #1 SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON
CC PUBLIC DOMAIN TOOLS

Respondents reported a relatively good understanding of how to use CC publicdomain tools, with close to ⅓ being highly confident about their understandingof how CC0 and PDM work. However, responses were a little less positive withregard to how easy it is to apply the tools to content.

A large majority of respondents reported that it was easy to find information
about the CC public domain tools, but when it came to rating the information,
responses show room for improvement. The CC website was the number one
source of information by far, followed by sharing platformsʼ terms of use.

Fig. 11: Understanding of CC Tools (On a scale from 1(low) to 5(high))

Fig. 12: Information about CC Tools (On a scale from 1(difficult) to 5(easy))

1

•
•
•
•

How confident do you feel about yourunderstanding of how PDM works?
How confident do you feel about yourunderstanding of how CC0 works?
Do you find PDM easy to apply to content?
Do you find CC0 easy to apply to content?

2

3

4

5

15% 13% 16%

29% 27%

•

8%

30%

•

8%

22%

31%

14% 13%

29% 17% 27%

12%

34% 23% 29%

9%How easy is it to find information about the
CC tools?
How would you rate the information
available explaining how the CC tools work?

1

2

3

4%

5%

23% 29% 39%

5%

8%

23%

Fig. 13: Preferred Sources of Information About CC Tools(multiple answers possible)

11

4

5

39% 25%

NEW INFORMATION MATERIALS CAN IMPROVE
USERS’ UNDERSTANDING

USERS ARE, FROM RESPONDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE,CONFUSED ABOUT CC0 AND PDM

Respondents ranked their preferred methods from a supplied list of options, anddeveloping information materials comes as a clear favorite.

Respondents told us that, based on what they know, their users seem confused
about the difference between the two CC public domain tools.

Fig. 14: Ways to Improve Usersʼ Understanding (multiple answers possible)

Fig. 15: Based on what you know, do you think users are confused about thedifference between CC0 and PDM? (Coded answers based on open questions)

Here are some of the additional comments they shared:•

From those respondents who answered “other”, ideas include:•••“Better / clearer communication via our own online collection userinterface.”“Create educational programs and campaigns especially for higher
education in creative industries.”“I think it is not a problem to understand CC0 for the final users, it is aproblem to understand CC0 for the institutions. We should recommend CC0
more clearly and more explicitly. A flag which says ʻrecommended tool for
public cultural institutions on all their contentʼ.”

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
12

Probably? I think it's clear but since we still get permission requests evenwhen all our digitized material is clearly labeled with the PDM there is
probably confusion all around.
Yes. I think end users don't necessarily understand the difference. And evenpractitioners sometimes have difficulty understanding when to apply one
over the other.
I think most users think that CC0 and PDM are basically the same since theyboth don't bear any restrictions on the use and reuse of the content.
Yes, including us : )If they aren't involved in the open movement, for sure.
Yes, it even took us curators a while to fully grasp the differences.
They have no idea what it is.
The nuances between the two and their application are not clear to many.
Si, creo que yo tampoco lo tengo muy claro.

SHARING COLLECTIONS AND METADATA WITH CC PUBLIC
DOMAIN TOOLS IS LARGELY CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE•

Regarding PDM, 68% consider PDM appropriate to share collections online or are
neutral about it, while 32% find it completely or somewhat inappropriate. A lotof whether or not PDM is appropriate to share collections online hinges on the
copyright status of the materials: public domain materials seem to require thePDM whereas material in copyright may be released using CC0, which is also thepreferred option to deal with legal uncertainty and lack of harmonization. The
issue of rights clearance is recurrent and appears to limit the use of CC tools.
Some of the reasons invoked include: PDM is not a legal tool (simply a label); it
does not enable acknowledging local communities; digital reproductions of 3D(e.g., photographs of sculptures) objects are often protected by copyright andthus require using CC0 rather than PDM.

•••

Fig. 16: Sharing Content with PDM (On a scale from 1(not) to 5 (very))
1

•
•
•

How appropriate is PDM for your institution
in sharing your collection online?
How appropriate is PDM for your institution
in sharing metadata about the collection
online?
How useful is PDM in meeting yourinstitution's needs?

2

3

4

•

5

25% 25%•

25% 11%

24% 17% 23%•

14%

26% 22%

18% 14% 18%

9%

28%

Here are some of the additional comments we received:••

All the material we currently host is out of copyright and straight copies
can't be copyrighted (this is a philosophical stance) so there is no need torelease copyright, just to state that the materials are public domain.
We have many public domain works, but also some where copyright status
cannot be determined 100%. Also to future proof CC0 might be a better
option.

13

We are working with local communities and their members, who have been
often invisible or anonymous. So their content is shared more with openaccess licenses that contain terms for attribution and less with a PDM, sothey can be acknowledged. However, misuses of open-access sharing may
affect their well-being, social and economical life, it is a complicated issue.
We have lots of PD content, we just don't mark it explicitly by PDM mark.
We handle a lot of diverse materials in collections with unclear authorshipand copyright holders.
Art- 14 Copyright Directive removes copyright or related rights on images ofPD artworks. No copyright = PDM. CC0 presupposes copyright.
Consequently PDM is the only appropriate tool.
We want to share Public Domain content with correct rights labeling and
PDM makes it easy and links to explanations of Public Domain terms.
Les collections sont dans le domaine public mais les photographies (objets
en 3D) sont soumises au droit d'auteur.
La política sobre preservación de patrimonio cultural y colecciones está endesarrollo, incluyendo aspectos de derechos de autor. En consecuencia, no
hay lineamientos institucionales. Por tal razón, aunque hay información enla comunidad, no se maneja con fluidez y propiedad lo relacionado con eldominio público.

Regarding CC0, 74% consider it appropriate or are neutral about using it to sharecollections online, and 16% find it inappropriate.

•

Fig. 17: Sharing Content with CC0 (On a scale from 1(not) to 5 (very))
1

•
•
•

2

3

4

5

How appropriate is CC0 for your institution in 16% 10% 29% 23% 22%
sharing your collection online?
How appropriate is CC0 for your institution in 5% 9% 17% 23% 46%
sharing metadata about the collection
online?
8% 10% 21% 30% 31%
How useful is CC0 in meeting yourinstitution's needs?

•••

Here are some of the additional comments we received:

•

•

•
•
•

•

•
•
•

•
•

CC0 is the universal tool if you are a holder of copyright or database rights
and you wish to waive all your interests, if any, in your work worldwide.
Works where we own copyright are made available as CC BY, aside frommetadata and editorial web content in some cases, to promote provenanceand source crediting. Few rights holders who give us permission to use theircontent online would agree to CC0, so CC BY is our go-to license whenrequesting permission.
Most content is either under PDM or under copyright. If we decide to use an
open license we prefer CC BY or CC BY-SA so that our institution must [sic]be credited.
For out-of-copyright works, we apply PDM. For in-copyright works wesometimes apply CC0, but mostly CC BY.
Our special collection is very large. some of it is digitized, some not. andmuch of the collection hasn't undergone a rights analysis at a systematiclevel where something like PDM would even be applied. we are working on
a rights assessment workflow.
Adding a recommended citation would be useful (source/location of thecollection and authors, even if it is not obligatory to mention them).
We prefer to use “No copyright restrictions" on out of copyright material,and feel using a CC0 license is confusing.

•

14

We view CC0 as the tool that best expresses and facilitates our institutional
open access policy for digital reproductions of works in the public domain.
We understand that CC0 is appropriate for application in cases where thecreator of the digital file does not wish to claim any rights it might have inthe digital reproduction. We also understand CC0 provides greater certainty
for cross-border reuse, and we participate in several collaborations withinternational partners.
Nearly all of the documents or artworks are already in PD!
We use PDM for public domain and other CC licenses or other open licenses
for other collections. We don't think that digital reproductions create new
copyright protection that has to be waived.
It's an elegant choice to make for an institution to share. thumbs up! But
not always possible, a lot of work goes into that decision - but in mypersonal opinion it is worth it.
Elle concerne uniquement les modélisations 3D. Les images des collectionsétant sous Licence Ouverte Etalab plus restrictive.
Nos interesa que se acredite la procedencia del objeto digital.
No todos están dispuestos a renunciar a sus derechos.
La mayor parte de nuestro repositorio entra dentro de los parámetros de
PDM y no somos poseedores de derechos para incluirlas como CC0.
Si la obra está en dominio público, es mejor PDM; si no lo está, cualquierade las otras licencias CC es más conveniente.

GUIDANCE AND CLARIFICATION TOP THE LIST OF WAYS CC
COULD ENCOURAGE GREATER TOOL USE
Hereʼs what respondents said CC could do to encourage greater use of CC publicdomain tools (from a list of options, multiple answers possible):

Additional ideas include:

•

•
•

•
•
•

Give clear guidance on which tool to use for which content and purpose(80.2%)
Clarify the differences between CC0 and PDM (79.3%)
Explain the benefits of sharing content using CC public domain tools(64.0%)
Offer capacity-building activities to improve understanding of tools for the
GLAM sector (59.5%)••

Fig. 18: Ways CC Could Encourage Greater Use of CC Tools(multiple answers possible)•

15

Devote more energy to CC0 or its successor.
Perhaps some examples of implementation that address a range ofstrategic objectives that may be relevant to [GLAMs]. Address the specificrisks that may be perceived (loss or revenue, reputational or legal damage
caused by incorrectly assigned licenses).
Not focusing on the tools but on why people need them. Are you a GLAM -->go for the CC0. Are you a researcher CC0 for data and CC BY for othercontent, are you a non profit ---> move away from the NC (non commercial
is not for the non profit!!).
Any tools must have an API to deal with large numbers of documents (wehave 53000 public documents now).
Setting up more exchanges between GLAMs and the creative industries.

REUSE TRACKING, CREDIT AND ETHICAL NEEDS NOT METWITH CC PUBLIC DOMAIN TOOLS
Regarding CC0, respondents share their unmet needs and responded, from achoice of options, that the main reason was that they wanted to be credited(56%), followed by a desire to track reuses of the content (49%), and a need toaddress ethical or cultural concerns (38%).

Regarding PDM, a very similar picture emerges, with a need for credit taking thefirst spot.

Fig. 19: What needs, if any, are not met by CC0? (multiple answers possible)

Fig. 20: What needs, if any, are not met by PDM? (multiple answers possible)“Other” responses largely mapped onto the given options:•••

Tracking reuse is an analytics challenge. CC could do more to help track
usage with new technologies on the legal tools or unique IDs.
We want to encourage reuse while communicating potential ethical orcultural considerations.
Not being credited is an important part of not deciding in favor of CC0.

16

IMPROVING THE TOOLS / CREATING NEW TOOLS WITH
REUSE TRACKING, ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS, AND
CREDIT TO INSTITUTIONS
How could PDM be improved based on your institution's needs?

Regarding CC0, many mentioned the need for more training, capacity building
and awareness raising to enhance clarity, especially around different contexts.
The most cited improvement recommendations include a mechanism for nonmandatory credit and the possibility to track reuse.

••

How could CC0 be improved based on your institution's needs?
•

•
•
•
•
•

Creating a point of reference not only of generic explanations for CC0, butcontext-specific ones. For example in the case of working together withlocal communities, developing trustful sources of reference with CC0 goodpractices and uses based on their needs.
Maybe with the possible traceability of re-use of metadata.
Require credit and disallow abuse of content.
… CC should recommend tools on its website (PLEASE ADD "Recommended
for GLAMs" on CC0, "Not compatible with Open Access" on all ND and NC...).
We would like to be able to track research or commercial use.
Podría ser màs claro en su diferencia con PDM para el usuario.

•
•
•
•
•

For PDM too, more training and capacity building, along with a need for clear
guidance were often mentioned.

••

It should be retired or incorporated into a next generation legal tool built on
CC0.
Less "legalese", easier to read description of terms. Countrywide legal
adaptations. (In Sweden there are possibilities to extend copyrightprotection due to ethical/cultural concerns for instance, so a blanket
statement might need additional details).
Clearer recommendations for using PDM alongside guidance for ethicalreuse such as Traditional Knowledge Labels, and suggestions oncommunicating how these work together for users.
Ways to engineer the mark to include useful (machine-readable) data.
The PDM could be improved by making it mandatory to indicate thelocation of the material.
Include cultural definitions of open access, or create a different type of
license.
All the options in question 40 are important to us and we have to deal withthem independently of the PDM labeling. In some cases that leads torestricting public access just to make sure that we can pass ethical or
attribution requirements to those who want to use our PD collections.
Tracking reuse would be great! Ways to look into web 3 options would begreat.
Nos interesa que se acredite la procedencia del objeto digital.

Some of the needs that could potentially be met by creating new tools include:
•
•
•
•
•

17

Standard tools to track reuse.
Issues and concerns about non-representative and non-dominant
understandings of copyright.
Ethical issues around privacy and cultural sensitivity.
Tool extensions for metadata for content management systems andstandards to enable metadata to be machine-readable.
Monetisation of content created with CC.

Three respondents said that we should not create a new tool as this would create
confusion, but that existing tools should be adapted instead.
Additional comments include:
•

•
•

•

•
•
•
•

Currently my biggest challenges are (1) communicating ethicalconsiderations regarding privacy, cultural sensitivity, etc. that are distinct
from but complement copyright/legal licensing metadata; and (2) helping
users and donors overcome intimidation around CC language and licenses.
For the latter, it would be really helpful to have more guidance on how totalk about CC with language that avoids jargon. For instance, several years
ago we transitioned to an oral history form that applies a CC license, but it isclear that interviewees are not always getting a clear explanation about its
meaning or implications for future use. In another case, a family lawyer
objected to the use of a CC license for a project, even though we ultimately
developed a rights statement with terms nearly identical to CC-BY-NC-ND.
Capacity building, awareness, collaboration.
A very useful tool would be to integrate CC licenses extensions in themetadata of content management systems as drop-down menus (in asimilar way metadata fields can be linked to the Dublin Core/DCMI terms).
In addition, (machine readable) standards for documenting the culturalcontent of communities (a type of metadata model for open licenses). Also
standards for documenting artists who use the work of communities.
I am afraid that -at the moment- creating new and different tools might
increase the confusion around copyright and CC licenses. I think what wecurrently need are more clear guidelines when to license a work under a CC
license / tool (and under which one), and when not.
Just keep it simple.
Permit users to more easily monetize works created with CC content.
We would like to have some tools related to risk management and orphan
works. Another area is to track the usage.
Help institutions in NOT selecting "ND" license, for example not saying thatyou have to choose it to have "non commercial purposes", but saying
instead that you choose that "to keep a commercial monopoly", so "ND" isnot encouraged by mistake to non-profits

View in Tropical Forest / Darien Expedition by John Moran, Public Domain

18Here are all the statements we asked about:
Statements from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (totally agree))

10 THOUGHT PROVOKING STATEMENTS

1

At the end of our questionnaire, we provided a series of statements and asked
people to which degree they agreed with them. Hereʼs a selection of the moststriking responses in no particular order.

•

1. About ⅔ find the legal jargon used in the CC public domain tools
complicated or are neutral about it.
2. 56% understand the difference between CC0 and PDM, but 28% do not or
not at all.
3. About 48% find determining the copyright or public domain status ofworks in collections difficult.
4. About ⅓ do not know which of CC0 or PDM is better to use to release
digital reproductions of items in collections.
5. About 29% are afraid of what might happen when releasing content into
the public domain.
6. 72% see how CC public domain tools can make a difference in how theinstitution shares its collection.
7. 18% [mistakenly] believe they can apply CC0 even if they do not own
copyright in the digital content.
8. 77% think CC0 and PDM could be combined to simplify how we markpublic domain materials or are neutral about it.
9. 21% believe that releasing content into the public domain will enable their
institutions to be more financially sustainable.
10. 29% are of the view that CC public domain tools do not take account of
cultural or ethical concerns that are important for their institution.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

19

7%
The legal jargon used in the CC tools iscomplicated.
Determining the copyright or public domain 8%
status of works in our collection is difficult.
I understand the CC tools in theory, but I find 11%
them hard to apply in practice.
I understand the difference between CC0 and 16%
PDM.
I do not know which of CC0 or PDM is better26%
to use to release digital reproductions of
items in our collection.
33%
I am afraid of what can happen if I releasecontent into the public domain.
I am not sure if the CC tools apply to the21%
digital reproductions or to the underlying
copyright works, or both at the same time.
I wonder if, by using a CC tool, users will be26%able to give credit to my institution.
I do not see how CC tools can make any
47%
difference in how my institution shares its
collection.
I do not see the point of using CC0 on
28%material that is already in the public domain.
Releasing content into the public domain will 22%
make my institution more financiallysustainable.
20%
CC tools do not take account of cultural or
ethical concerns that are important for myinstitution.
9%
I cannot apply CC0 if I do not own the
copyright.
9%
I think the CC0 and PDM tools could be
combined to simplify how we mark publicdomain materials.

2

3

4

5

29%

36% 15%

13%

17%

27%

19%

29%

31% 28%

18%

12%

12%

16%

21%

35%

19%

21%

15%

19%

17%

21%

17%

12%

20%

23% 16%

20%

16%

18%

19%

21%

25%

14%

4%

9%

13%

21%

18%

21%

16%

42% 10%11%17%

35% 14%

15%

9%

29%

9%

43%

14%

33% 18%26%

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ROADMAPFOR THE FUTURE

1. GET TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND OUR GLOBALCOMMUNITY BETTER

Based on the above findings, we developed a top-level four-step roadmap for
future action that we aspire to carry out in order to address some of the mostpressing needs and to improve the use of the CC public domain tools in thecultural heritage sector. These recommendations and the scope and extent ofpossible future initiatives are contingent upon many factors, including capacity,
resources, and future funding — so, as much as we are committed to realizing
them, we acknowledge practical challenges which we will seek to resolve. We
consider these as the first steps that CC might take and hope it gives a taste ofwhat we wish to embark on first, expecting these will lead to other activities
further down the road.

Based on the fact that most respondents are located in Europe and North
America, we recognize the need to broaden our outreach to a wider geographicalscope and greater diversity of CHIs, including institutions that are small, lowcapacity, underserved, underrepresented, and/or outside Canada, the USA, andWestern Europe. We believe that their needs and perspectives must be includedin the global conversations that CC is leading about open culture. This iscorroborated by several CC-community case studies about experiences of lowcapacity and geographically diverse cultural heritage institutions, as reported in
our May 2022 blog post “Eight case studies show opportunities, challenges, andneeds of low-capacity and non-Western cultural heritage institutions.”16

•
•
•
•

How we hope to do it:

Step 1: Get to know and understand our global community better.
Step 2: Raise awareness, offer guidance and build capacity.
Step 3: Probe unmet needs.
Step 4: Explore legal and technical improvements to the tools.

•
•
•
•
•
•

20

Develop an outreach plan for new communities and audiences.
Develop resources to orient new members.
Organize “meet and greet” virtual events to welcome new members.
Identify local partners to conduct localized outreach.
Organize consultations about contexts and specificities of our widened
global community.
Engage with new members to encourage and support participation.

2. RAISE AWARENESS, OFFER GUIDANCE AND
BUILD CAPACITY

3. PROBE UNMET NEEDS
Results tend to point to three areas of unmet needs: ethical issues, institution
credit and reuse tracking. Firstly, some of the findings indicate a need to scope
the points of intersection between openness and concerns around respectful,
ethical and culturally-sensitive use of materials. We thus intend to explore theinterplay between CC public domain tools and ethical and cultural concerns. CC
is exploring nuanced and respectful approaches to open sharing and theapplication of CC licenses and tools to wrongfully appropriated, culturally
sensitive works. Secondly, some of the data shows that several CHIs [wrongly]
resort to CC licenses instead of public domain tools to share reproductions ofworks in their collection. To curb this legally problematic use of licenses overpublic domain materials, CC could explore other options to meet the need ofcrediting institutions in full legal certainty, along the suggestions developed by
the Open Culture Platform working group investigating the use of CC BY todesignate holders of public domain collections.18 A third unmet need is thedesire for institutions to track reuse of their online content.

Our findings point to some struggle in choosing which CC tool to use with publicdomain works, in particular in light of the uncertainty regarding the copyrightstatus of non-original reproductions of works. At CC, we have long advocated for
digital reproductions of public domain works (and related metadata) to remainin the public domain. No new copyright or related rights should attach to nonoriginal reproductions of public domain works upon being digitized. We aspire
to contribute to improving the legal clarity and certainty around the use andeffects of our public domain tools.
We aim to provide clear, simple, accessible, relevant, easy to understand, andengaging guidance. We also aim to provide educational materials and trainings
to explain the differences between CC0 and PDM, how to choose between thetwo, CCʼs position on their use as well as concrete examples of best practices. CC
intends to offer these resources in languages other than English and we hope todevelop non-traditional resources, including memes, comics, infographics, andanimated explainer videos that speak to a non-expert audience.

How we hope to do it:•

We also aim to offer enhanced capacity-building for various actors of the open
culture sphere, ranging from CHI practitioners to creators and (re)users,
members of the creative industries, as well as researchers and educators.

•
CC will also work towards strengthening knowledge about public domain tools
in CHIs, and develop practical and concrete guidelines on how to apply the tools.
•

How we hope to do it:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Upgrade existing and/or develop new simple, accessible, and informative
resources, including CCʼs website.
Share and disseminate knowledge, best practices and practicalinformation through written communications and materials.
Participate in related discussions at CC-organized and community- andpartner-organized external events.
Explore options for a coalition “Friends of Open Culture.”
Promote the CC Open Culture / GLAM Certificate training.17
Seek funding to support certificate training for professionals fromunderrepresented regions/sectors.
Promote the CC Open Culture platform as a capacity building space.
Diversify our professional development trainings to address a greater
variety of needs.

•

21

Continue and formalize conversations to explore paths to weave open
culture with cultural respect imperatives; for example, organize or take partin convenings of experts (e.g., working groups, webinars, conferences, etc.).
Develop guidance on open culture, ethical and cultural considerations
and respect, and identify resources compatible with CCʼs better sharing
approach.
Continue the conversation on the credit / acknowledgement ofinstitutions as source of collection item and continue to explore andimplement solutions.
Research reuse tracking options in line with open culture values andcommunity needs.

4. EXPLORE LEGAL AND TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE TOOLS
A number of findings converge to indicate some level of confusion or doubt
around which of the two CC public domain tools to use to share digital
reproductions of works online. There is seemingly significant time and capacity
spent on choosing between the two. CC could explore the possibility of merging
the two public domain tools in order to dispel confusion and to ensure that thePDM can be applied to digital reproductions, without any risk of there being
rights in the digital reproduction layer needing to be waived.
How we hope to do it:••

Hold consultations with open culture and stewardship community
members as well as public users of CC public domain tools in general todetermine opportunities to merge CC0 and PDM into a more flexible tool.
Produce a first draft of what a combined tool might look like forconsideration and development.

Jungle Fowl for Allen & Ginter Cigarettes by G. S. Harris & Sons, Public Domain

22

ENDNOTES
1. What are the barriers to open culture? Hereʼs what the CC community has tosay by Brigitte Vézina (22 July 2022), https://creativecommons.org/
2022/07/22/what-are-the-barriers-to-open-culture-heres-what-the-cccommunity-has-to-say/
2. Public Domain 2022: Join us 20 January for a Celebration of Sound by Ony
Anukem (9 Deceber 2021)https://creativecommons.org/2021/12/09/publicdomain-2022-join-us-20-january-for-a-celebration-of-sound/
3. Creative Commons Homepage https://creativecommons.org/
4. Creative Commons Licenses https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/
5. License Stewardship https://creativecommons.org/stewardship/
6. Public Domain Mark https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/
7. CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication https://creativecommons.org/
publicdomain/zero/1.0/
8. CC0 and PDM Comparison Chart https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/
CC0_PDM_comparison_chart
9. Creative Commons Open Culture https://creativecommons.org/about/program-areas/arts-culture/
10. Announcing Our New Strategy: Whatʼs Next for CC by Catherine Stihler (16December 2022) https://creativecommons.org/2020/12/16/announcingour-new-strategy-whats-next-for-cc/
11. About CC0 https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/
cc0/
12. About Public Domain Mark https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/
public-domain/pdm/
13. Public Domain 2022: Join us 20 January for a Celebration of Sound by Ony
Anukem (9 Deceber 2021)https://creativecommons.org/2021/12/09/publicdomain-2022-join-us-20-january-for-a-celebration-of-sound/
14. Questionnaires
1. English https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1ArFtZ5rwXehn9M_1wyX8PZa7HNrEy1tE/view?usp=share_link
2. French https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1XXHhnSDAE7bH3EowrxdJVvXoe3umamEP/view?usp=share_link
3. Spanish https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1FWTSV8mXbXlx9UnF_C4YkrdTCudXAwvI/view?usp=share_link

15. Needs Assessment Responses Anonymized https://docs.google.com/
spreadsheets/d/1qEFhO-xuwNH_hkW8PEKpmjL9rvzgfHUccj9Kp6guICs/
edit?usp=sharing
16. Eight case studies show opportunities, challenges, and needs of lowcapacity and non-western cultural heritage instiutions by Camille Françoise
and Brigite Vézina (4 May 2022) https://creativecommons.org/2022/05/04/
eight-case-studies-show-opportunities-challenges-and-needs-of-lowcapacity-and-non-western-cultural-heritage-institutions/
17. Creative Commons Certificate Course https://certificates.creativecommons.org/
18. Report of the Working Group to Investigate Use of CC BY designate holdersof public domain collections by Deborah de Angelis (6 February 2023)
https://medium.com/creative-commons-we-like-to-share/report-of-theworking-group-to-investigate-use-of-cc-by-to-designate-holders-of-publicdomain-679e75c05e8f.

IMAGES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
23

Mindet, Christianso by Edvard Weie, Public Domain; https://open.smk.dk/
en/artwork/image/KMS6391 Statens Museum for Kunst
Tiger in the Jungle by Paul Elie Ranson, CC0; https://www.clevelandart.org/
art/1956.280 The Cleavland Museum of Art
Screenshot of Creative Commons Tweet posted on January 11, 2022 by
Creative Commons https://twitter.com/creativecommons/status/
1480902490442842117?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Phone by Yusup Apandi, CC BY 4.0 https://thenounproject.com/icon/
phone-4572630/
Virgin Forest with Sunset by Henri Rousseau, Public Domain; https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henri_Rousseau__Foret_vierge_au_soleil_couchant.jpg
View in Tropical Forest / Darien Expedition by John Moran, Public Domain;
https://www.si.edu/object/view-tropical-forest-darienexpedition:npg_S_NPG.2007.117 Smithsonian Institution
Jungle Fowl, from Birds of the Tropics series (N38) for Allen & GinterCigarettes by George S. Harris & Sons, Public Domain https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/420754 The Metropolitan
Museum of Art
Wooded view near Barbizon by Johan Hendrick Weissenbruch, Public
Domain; https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-A-1923
RijksmuseumQUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
Reach out and let us know!
Email info@creativecommons.org to share your feedback with us.
Do you want to know more about CCʼs activities related to open culture andthose of the open GLAM community?
•
•
•
•
•

Become a member of the CC Global Network https://
network.creativecommons.org/
Become a member of the CC Open Culture Platform https://
docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdMXU5Sb6ATDZx-alTvf9DCfs3jzDlXAKCY7sowjb3vqW0HA/viewform
Sign up to the CC Open Culture mailing list https://groups.google.com/a/creativecommons.org/g/cc-open-culture
Join the #cc-openglam Slack channel https://creativecommons.slack.com/archives/C57MTL8F7
Participate in CC Open Culture Platform calls — they are announced in the
Slack channel and on the mailing list

Needs assessment conducted by Creative Commons: January – February 2022
•
•
•
•
•

Project lead, data work and report writing: Brigitte Vézina.
Design and layout: Connor Benedict.
Review and editing: Nate Angell.
Feedback: Ony Anukem, Kat Walsh, Yuanxiao Xu, Jennryn Wetzler.
CC is grateful for Camille Françoiseʼs contribution.

© Creative Commons 2023 | Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Wooded View near Barbizon by John Hendrick Weissenbruch, Public Domain