This course will become read-only in the near future. Tell us at community.p2pu.org if that is a problem.
You: Are an awesome citizen of the web. Want to share your work with others. Want to use stuff that people have shared with you.
This challenge: Will familiarize you with the range of Creative Commons licenses, which grant permission to the world to use creative work in specific ways. Will get you started on the road to CC savvy with a few short videos and activities.
Image: CC on Orange by Yamashita Yohei, CC BY license.
Overview
Choosing the right CC license for a work can be a deliberative and thought-provoking process, but it doesn't have to be. We describe license-choosing in more detail below, but if you want to pick one quickly, Creative Commons has a simple tool for choosing a license based on a couple questions about how you'd like people to use your work.
Basically, when you're looking to share your work with others, ask yourself: do I want to allow commercial use of my work or not, and then second, do I want to allow modifications of my work or not? If you're not concerned about commercial use or controlling modifications of your work (in fact, you'd love it if people made derivative works based on yours!), then you can use the CC Attribution (CC BY) license. If you want to allow derivative works, but require that any derivatives also be made open, you can add the ShareAlike condition.
It doesn't hurt to think a bit more deeply about what uses you want to permit and even encourage. Every creator has specific interests and levels of comfort with sharing work, so it's important to take that into account when making a license choice. One person's pro could be another person's con. Different communities have varying sharing requirements, so choosing a license might need to conform with your community of interest. For example, the Free Culture community only views the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses as acceptable for a work to be "free". Creative Commons has been collecting a wide variety of examples of people in music, education, and social justice, all using CC licensing for their work.
Much as we love CC licenses, they are not appropriate for all situations. CC offers a handful of possibilities to consider before you decide on a license.
Exercise
First, decide what license you think the creator in each scenario would choose. Then go to the Creative Commons license chooser tool and answer the questions like you were the creator.
In each case, was the license chooser result the same license you chose? If not, what do you think happened that led to the discrepancy? Did you choose different licenses depending on the type of creator? If so, why? What was different?
Hint
Ready to CC license your own work? Try this other P2PU challenge: "Get a CC license. Put it on your website."
A few years ago, Creative Commons released a primer about why CC BY may be preferable to a NC sometimes of the gray area of what qualifies as Noncommerical (i.e. is it about profit ? can you charge at marginal cost of production?): http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ccLearn_primer-Why_CC_BY.pdf
I think it would be more effective to give a quiz with feedback in a new window. If people post answers in the comments, there's no incentive for new participants to answer them.
1.I would choose the Attribution Non Commercial since it would allow the musician to retain the right to sell the music but would also be free enough for others to remix, share, and even build out. It would also ensure their work was credited to them and that it was not limited to only others who would license it according to the ShareAlike option.
2.I would choose the Attribution license. It would allow the teacher to share the content and let others use it in its original form or even adapt to their specific classroom needs.
3. I would choose the Attribution or Attribution ShareAlike license since it would give Wikipedia the right to use the image and also give editors the right to interpret it. Depending on the photographer’s intention, the ShareAlike option ensures that the image is continually being reused and licensed in the same fashion. (I also did a little research and noticed that those were the two most common options people chose to use when licensing their images that were used on Wikipedia pages.)
Overall, the license chooser produced the same results, but I was also interpreting the content for the license chooser in terms of what I anticipated the creators in the scenarios wanted when I initially selected a license I thought was appropriate. In other words, I still controlled both scenarios based on my interpretation and couldn't be sure that the results were the same because of this or because those really were the best options.
I did not think too much about the creators as different in each of these scenarios except where it was made explicit. For instance, the musician clearly wanted commercial right still, and this made a clear distinction of the musician from the other two. I interpreted these scenarios as if the creators were all producing material with the same intention of sharing their work with the hope of greater distribution and audience interaction and made the general choices based on that generalization.
As I write this comment, a virtual team is concurrently writing the task in the School of Open Virtual Sprint. So, my choice to start the challenge may seem a little premature. However, in the spirit of rapid feedback cycles, I'm testing this task.
I have used a Creative Commons License on several of my sites and encourage my students to share their work and cite other's work appropriately, too. I especially appreciate infrastructure to support appropriate citation of CC Licensed work. They serve as nudges for appropriate choices. So, I was excited to see the graphic and link on this task to the optional metadata tool at Creative Commons. Since I am producing a new type of work, I want to see how to use this new-to-me feature.
Definitely not premature - more feedback more often more... quicker.
Is this task missing anything you feel you need? Within the School of Open, I'd like to see a general "metadata rulez!" course.
So, when I tried to use the Metadata tool at CC, I encountered a problem. 
I want to share my work on Snap! with an open license. So, I found the most appropriate task and combined the two efforts.
https://p2pu.org/en/groups/get-cc-savvy/content/the-right-license-for-the-job/
This image shows a user interface issue for a tool at Creative Commons that I encountered. Yes, the "Source work url" is naturally that long and clearly distorts the CC page interface.
I know that this is not P2PU's responsibility but users of the task and teachers need to navigate.
Exemplars of student work would help alot but that is definitely premature!
I agree on the need for work either as a task or even as a full course on metadata.
So, I created a new and improved Creative Commons License with metadata for work remixing and extending the Snap! Vee Project from Brian and Jens.
Meta: Note that the user interface issue that I encountered in completing Task 3 of the CC Savvy course at P2PU disappeared when I added the embed code from the Creative Commons site to the Snap! Project page.
