Rights
Creative Commons Video: What the Licences Actually Allow
The six licences, what each condition means in practice, and how to attribute properly so the permission holds.
2 min read · Published 15 August 2026
General information rather than legal advice. Licence terms are the authoritative source; this is a summary of how they are commonly understood.
Creative Commons licences let a creator grant permission in advance, on stated conditions, without anyone having to ask. For someone looking for footage they can legitimately use, this is one of the most useful things on the internet. It only works if you read which licence you are dealing with, because they differ substantially.
The building blocks
- BY, attribution: credit the creator. Present in every current licence.
- SA, share alike: anything you build on it must carry the same licence.
- NC, non-commercial: no commercial use.
- ND, no derivatives: you may share it, but not modified.
| Licence | Commercial use | Modification | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| CC BY | Yes | Yes | The most permissive. Credit is the only condition. |
| CC BY-SA | Yes | Yes | Derivatives must carry the same licence. |
| CC BY-NC | No | Yes | Non-commercial only. |
| CC BY-NC-SA | No | Yes | Non-commercial, and share alike. |
| CC BY-ND | Yes | No | Share unchanged only. |
| CC BY-NC-ND | No | No | The most restrictive combination. |
CC0 is separate and is not really a licence: it is a dedication in which the creator gives up their rights as far as the law allows, putting the work as close to public domain as a deliberate act can.
Where it gets awkward
Non-commercial is the vaguest term and causes the most disputes. A video on a channel that carries advertising is generally understood to be commercial. Beyond obvious cases the line is genuinely unclear, and if your use is anywhere near it, either ask the creator or choose something without the restriction.
No derivatives is stricter than it first appears. Cutting a clip out of a longer work is a modification. So is adding it to a montage in some readings. If you intend to edit at all, ND material is the wrong choice.
Share alike is contagious by design. Building on SA material means your finished work carries the same licence, which may not be what you or a client want.
Attributing properly
A good attribution contains four things: the title, the creator, the licence with its version, and a link to the source. Something like: Harbour at Dusk by A. Rivera, CC BY 4.0, followed by the link.
In video, put it where it will actually be seen: on screen near the clip, or in the credits, and in the description as well. Attribution in a description alone is common practice but weaker if the video is viewed elsewhere.
Verify before you rely on it
Anyone can label a video with a licence, including someone who did not make it. Check that the person applying the licence looks like the actual creator, and prefer sources where that link is clear. A licence applied by someone with no right to grant it gives you nothing.
Keep a record: the URL, the licence, the creator, and the date you checked. Licences can be changed later, and a dated record of what was offered when you used it is worth having.
Common questions
Can I use CC BY-NC material on a monetised channel?
Generally not. A channel carrying advertising is normally treated as commercial. If in doubt, ask the creator or use material without the NC condition.
What happens if I forget to attribute?
Attribution is a condition of the licence, so failing to provide it means you are using the work outside the permission granted. Most licences allow you to fix it promptly once you become aware.
Is CC0 the same as public domain?
Close, and deliberately so. It is a dedication that waives rights as far as the law allows, since not every country lets a creator abandon copyright outright.