Get the latest CC news, updates, events, resources, and more right to your inbox!
Sign up for CC’s Newsletter
AI is changing how people create, share, and reuse content and data. It also raises new questions about how creators and rightsholders want their work to be used. But AI does not change what CC licenses are designed to do: communicate copyright permissions where copyright applies.
So we went back to our previous guidance and asked, “Does this still hold up?”
The short answer is: yes.
We continue to recommend using the most flexible CC license that meets your sharing goals. In some cases, a more restrictive license may be necessary. But a more restrictive license may also limit human reuse without preventing AI use, since many AI uses may fall outside copyright’s scope.
This guidance explains why, and what, CC licenses currently can and cannot do in relation to AI. It also describes the broader work we’re building to address needs that fall outside the scope of copyright licensing.
Questions and Answers
If our previous guidance is still good, why are we releasing this new report?
Because still good isn’t the same as well understood. AI has raised much uncertainty about what CC licenses can and can’t do, and this new guidance is our way to answer the uncertainty.
CC licenses are copyright tools. They communicate permissions where copyright applies.
AI introduces new questions about how content and data are accessed and used, including uses that may not be governed by copyright. In many jurisdictions, existing copyright exceptions and limitations may permit certain AI uses regardless of the license attached to the work. A CC license doesn’t override those exceptions.
This distinction matters. If a use falls outside of copyright, changing your license does not affect that. That’s why the emergence of AI hasn’t ultimately changed our recommendations for choosing a CC license. This doesn’t mean that every use of openly licensed work by AI systems is appropriate. It means that the current CC license is not always the tool that can govern those issues.
Then why continue to share?
While AI raises questions about sharing, those questions don’t erase the public-interest value of sharing.
Open licensing keeps knowledge and culture available for people to use, learn from, build on, and share. Researchers depend on it to advance knowledge. Educators depend on it to teach. Archivists and cultural institutions use it to preserve and make heritage accessible. Communities use it to create and participate in culture.
The commons benefits us all, and the answer to AI should not be to close it. This Licensing Guidance is one part of that work, focused on what our existing licenses can and cannot do in this new environment. Where copyright licensing alone is not enough, we are working on new approaches. CC Signals is a part of that broader effort: a flexible, commons-friendly framework for communicating expectations around AI use of content and data. Just as CC licenses offer choices about which rights to reserve, CC Signals will offer a spectrum of preferences for when and how work is used in AI.
What if I don’t want AI to use my content at all?
The only way to guarantee no AI use of your work is not to share it at all. In some cases, this may be the right choice for people. But choosing not to share, or sharing under more restrictive terms, also means less material is available for researchers, educators, archivists, and the public interest uses that depend on open access. We think there should be choices between all or nothing. CC Signals is what we’re building to give people that alternative path.