text:
This is the full/extended version of the FAQ. It has a lot of information, and may be difficult to navigate. You may want to first take a look at the abbreviated FAQ, which answers a handful of the most common questions people have about Creative Commons.
Please Note: Creative Commons does not provide legal advice. This FAQ is designed to be helpful in raising awareness about the use of our licenses. It is not a substitute for legal advice. It may not cover important issues that affect you and you may wish to consult with a lawyer.
Questions for people thinking about applying a Creative Commons license to their work
How do I apply a Creative Commons® license to my work?
For online works, you apply a Creative Commons license to a work by selecting the license that suits your preferences. Once you have selected your license, and if you are applying it to an online work, follow the instructions to include the html code in your work. This code will automatically generate a license button and a statement that your work is licensed under a Creative Commons license, or a CC0 or public domain button if you choose to dedicate your work to the public domain or certify that a work is in the public domain via one of our public domain tools. These buttons are designed to act as a notice to people who come in contact with your work that your work is licensed under the applicable Creative Commons license or is in the public domain. The html code will also include the metadata that enables your work to be found via Creative Commons-enabled search engines.
Can I apply a Creative Commons license to an offline work?
Yes. For offline works, you should identify which Creative Commons license you wish to apply to your work and then mark your work either: (a) with a statement such as "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons [insert description] License. To view a copy of this license, visit [insert url]; or, (b) send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 2nd Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA." or insert the applicable license buttons with the same statement and URL link.
The only difference between applying a Creative Commons license to an offline work and applying it to an online work is that offline works will not include the metadata and, consequently, will not be identified via Creative Commons-customized search engines.
May I apply a Creative Commons license to a work that is in the public domain?
No, Creative Commons licenses should not be applied to works in the public domain. Our licenses are intended for works protected by copyright only. Our deeds now state this unambiguously: "Public Domain -- where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license." Applying a CC license to a work in the public domain may constitute Copyfraud. However, if you incorporate a work that is in the public domain into a collection that is itself protected by copyright, then you may apply a Creative Commons license to the work as a collection, although the license will not affect the status of public domain work. Similarly, you may apply a Creative Commons license to an adaptation of a public domain work if you hold copyright to the adaptation.
How does a Creative Commons license operate?
A Creative Commons license is based on copyright. So they apply to all works that are protected by copyright law. The kinds of works that are protected by copyright law are books, websites, blogs, photographs, films, videos, songs and other audio & visual recordings, for example. Software programs are also protected by copyright but, as explained below, we do not recommend that you apply a Creative Commons license to software code.
Creative Commons licenses give you the ability to dictate how others may exercise your copyright rights—such as the right of others to copy your work, make derivative works or adaptations of your work, to distribute your work and/or make money from your work. They do not give you the ability to restrict anything that is otherwise permitted by exceptions or limitations to copyright—including, importantly, fair use or fair dealing—nor do they give you the ability to control anything that is not protected by copyright law, such as facts and ideas.
Creative Commons licenses attach to the work and authorize everyone who comes in contact with the work to use it consistent with the license. This means that if Bob has a copy of your Creative Commons-licensed work, Bob can give a copy to Carol and Carol will be authorized to use the work consistent with the Creative Commons license. You then have a license agreement separately with both Bob and Carol.
You should be aware that Creative Commons licenses only affect your rights under copyright. You are not licensing your trademark or patent rights, if any, when you apply a CC license to your work.
Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code). You don't need to sign anything to get a Creative Commons license—just select your license with our License Chooser.
One final thing you should understand about Creative Commons licenses is that they are all non-exclusive. This means that you can permit the general public to use your work under a Creative Commons license and then enter into a separate and different non-exclusive license with someone else, for example, in exchange for money.
What things should I think about before I apply a Creative Commons license to my work?
We have set out some things that you should think about before you apply a Creative Commons license to your work here.
Which Creative Commons license should I choose?
You should choose the license that meets your preferences. The license is a statement as to what others may do with your work, so you should select a license that matches what you are happy for others to do with your work. You can find an overview of the Creative Commons licenses here.
You can find out information about how our licenses have been applied by other people to text, audio, images, video and educational works.
You can also participate in our email discussion lists and/or review the discussion archives to see if our community is able to respond to your questions and concerns and/or has already addressed them.
Finally, you can also consult with a lawyer to obtain advice on the best license for your needs. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to this question and answer.
What if I change my mind?
Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work.
Do I need to sign something or register to obtain a Creative Commons license?
No. Creative Commons licenses are designed to be applied to your work and to be binding upon people who use your work based on their notice of the Creative Commons "Some Rights Reserved" (or "No Rights Reserved" in the case of works dedicated to or certified to be in the public domain with one of our public domain tools) button and the statement that the work is Creative Commons-licensed.
We do not keep track of or a register of which creative works have been licensed under a Creative Commons license. We make the licenses, code and tools available for you to use or not as you wish.
What is the Commons Deed? What is the legal code? What does the html/metadata do?
Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code).
The Commons Deed is a summary of the key terms of the actual license (which is the Legal Code)—basically, what others can and cannot do with the work. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath. This Deed itself has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual license.
The Legal Code is the actual license; a document designed to be enforced in a court of law.
The metadata describes the key license elements that apply to a piece of content to enable discovery through CC-enabled search engines.
I am in a band; can I use Creative Commons licenses but still collect statutory royalties such as under statutory licenses for public performances?
Yes, so long as you choose a "NonCommercial" license option (ie. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike or Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives) because under these licenses you reserve the right to collect royalties under statutory or compulsory licenses for commercial use of your work. Whether, as a practical matter, you can collect these royalties, depends on which country you are in (check out the answer to the next question).
Under the Creative Commons licenses that permit other people to make commercial use of your work (ie. Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NoDerivatives), the licensor waives the right to collect these royalties.
I am a member of a collecting society, can I use Creative Commons licenses?
You need to check with your society. Currently, many of the collecting societies in Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Taiwan and the Netherlands take an assignment of rights (or in France what is called a "mandate" of rights that nonetheless has the same effect practically as an assignment) from you in present and future works (so that they effectively become the owner of these rights) and manage them for you. So if you are already a member of a collecting society in one of these jurisdictions, you may not be entitled to license your work yourself under a Creative Commons license because the necessary rights are not held by you but by the collecting society. Please also read the FAQ on the website of the Creative Commons project team for your jurisdiction for more information about this issue in your jurisdiction.
Creative Commons is reaching out to collecting societies in those jurisdictions where this problem arises to try to find a solution that enables creators to enjoy the benefits both systems offer.
If you encounter difficulties with using Creative Commons licenses because of your membership in a collecting society in your jurisdiction that is not listed above, please let either your country's Creative Commons project team know or email firstname.lastname@example.com. Also, if you wish to discuss ways to try to deal with the situation in your country please contact your country's Creative Commons project team.
If you are already a member of one of these collecting societies, feel free to encourage your collecting society to give you the option of Creative Commons licensing.
Can I still make money from a work I make available under a Creative Commons licenses?
Absolutely. Firstly, because our licenses are non-exclusive which means you are not tied down to only make a piece of your content available under a Creative Commons license; you can also enter into other revenue-generating licenses in relation to your work. One of our central goals is to encourage people to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work.
Secondly, the noncommercial license option is an inventive tool designed to allow people to maximize the distribution of their works while keeping control of the commercial aspects of their copyright. To make one thing clear that is sometimes misunderstood: the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you (the licensor). So if you choose to license your work under a Creative Commons license that includes the "noncommercial use" option, you impose the "noncommercial" condition on the users (licensees). However, you, the creator of the work and/or licensor, may at any time decide to use it commercially. People who want to copy or adapt your work, "primarily for monetary compensation or financial gain" must get your separate permission first.
One thing to note on the noncommercial provision: under current U.S. law, file-sharing or the trading of works online is considered a commercial use -- even if no money changes hands. Because we believe that file-sharing, used properly, is a powerful tool for distribution and education, all Creative Commons licenses contain a special exception for file-sharing. The trading of works online is not a commercial use, under our documents, provided it is not done for monetary gain.
Do I need to register my copyright?
In most jurisdictions, registration is not required. However, for creators in the United States registration can be obtained and is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office's 'Copyright Basics' page, which explains more about copyright registration.
How do I register my copyright?
If you are based in the US, to find out more about how to register your copyright, check out the U.S. Copyright Office's 'Copyright Basics' document.
Is applying a Creative Commons license to my work the same or an alternative to registering the copyright to my work?
No. Applying a Creative Commons license to your work does not give you the same, similar or alternate protection to registering your copyright. Creative Commons licenses apply in addition to and on top of an existing copyright.
Do I need to register my copyright in order to use a Creative Commons license?
No. Creative Commons licenses apply to works that are copyrighted. As a general rule, in most jurisdictions, copyright protection is automatic for those works that satisfy the requirements of copyright law. Generally, copyright attaches to creative and expressive works once they are fixed in tangible form, ie. the minute you put pen to paper, brush to easel, hit the "save" button on your computer, the "send" button on your email or take a photo.
For U.S. based creators, registering your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office is advisable so that you can enforce your copyright in court. For US-based creators, you should check out the U.S. Copyright Office's 'Copyright Basics' page which explains more about copyright registration.
Do I need a copyright notice to protect my work?
You do not need to apply a copyright notice to secure copyright protection. However, a copyright notice can be useful because it clearly signals to people that you believe you own copyright in your work and who to contact.
Do Creative Commons licenses affect fair use, fair dealing or other exceptions to copyright?
No. All jurisdictions allow some uses of copyrighted material without permission, such as quotation, current-affairs reporting, or parody, although these vary from country to country. These usage rights are independent from the license and are not affected or changed in any way. To make this clear, all of our licenses include this or similar language: "Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws." Thus, regardless of the jurisdiction a user is in, our licenses do not affect a user's right to use or allow use of content under copyright exceptions and limitations. Read more about Fair Use in the United States..
Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?
We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.
Creative Commons has "wrapped" some free software/open source licenses with a human-readable "Commons Deed" and machine-readable metadata. You may use these "wrapped" software licenses to take advantage of the Creative Commons human-readable document as well as the machine-readable metadata while still licensing your work under an established software license. It is important to note that CC has not altered these software licenses in any way, but has simply bundled human- and machine-readable explanations of the licenses along with the original license text. Examples: GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, BSD.
Should I use Creative Commons licenses for software documentation?
Absolutely. Creative Commons licenses work well for all text materials.
What happens when a copyright owner says her work is governed by two different Creative Commons licenses?
As a user, you can choose to use the work under either license. Generally, a licensor that offers the same work under two different licenses gives the public a choice between them. If, for example, a photograph is governed by one license with a NonCommercial provision, plus a separate license with a NoDerivatives provision, it does not mean that both provisions apply together. If an owner wants both to apply together, she should be sure to choose a single license that contains both provisions.
Are Creative Commons licenses enforceable in a court of law?
The Creative Commons Legal Code has been drafted with the intention that it will be enforceable in court. That said, we can not account for every last nuance in the world's various copyright laws and/or the circumstances within which our licenses are applied and Creative Commons-licensed content is used. Please note, however, that our licenses contain "severability" clauses -- meaning that, if a certain provision is found to be unenforeceable in a certain place, that provision and only that provision drops out of the license, leaving the rest of the agreement intact.
Will Creative Commons help me enforce my license?
No. We are not permitted to provide legal advice or legal services to assist anyone with enforcing Creative Commons licenses. We are not a law firm. We're much like a legal self-help site that offers free form-based legal documents for you to use however you see fit.
However, if you are based in the US, you may be able to find a suitably qualified volunteer lawyer in your area from Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts. If you are based in Australia, the Arts Law Centre of Australia may be able to put you in touch with a volunteer lawyer.
What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work?
A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms. This means that, if a person uses your work under a Creative Commons license and they, for example, fail to attribute your work in the manner you specified, then they no longer have the right to continue to use your work. This only applies in relation to the person in breach of the license; it does not apply generally to the other people who use your work under a Creative Commons license and comply with its terms.
You have a number of options as to how you can enforce this; you can consider contacting the person and asking them to rectify the situation and/or you can consider consulting a lawyer to act on your behalf. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to this question and answer.
I don't like the way a person has used my work in a derivative work or included it in a collective work; what can I do?
If you do not like the way that a person has made a derivative work or incorporated your work into a collective work, under the Creative Commons licenses, you may request removal of your name from the derivative work or the collective work.
What are moral rights, and how could I exercise them to prevent uses of my work that I don't like?
In addition to the right of licensors to request removal of their name from a work when used in a derivative or collective they don't like, copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US except in very limited circumstances) grant creators "moral rights" which may provide some redress if a derivative work represents a "derogatory treatment" of the licensor's work. Moral rights give an original author the right to object to "derogatory treatment" of their work; "derogatory treatment" is typically defined as "distortion or mutilation" of the work or treatment that is "prejudicial to the honor, or reputation of the author." Creative Commons licenses (with the exception of Canada) do not affect any moral rights licensors may have. This means that if you have moral rights as an original author of a work, you may be able to take action against a creator who is using your work in a way you find objectionable. Of course, not all derivative works you don't like are necessarily "derogatory."
What are the international ("unported") CC licenses, and why does CC offer "ported" licenses?
Creative Commons offers a core suite of six copyright licenses that are written to conform to international treaties governing copyright. These licenses were drafted to be utilized and enforceable around the world without further modification. You can think of the international license suite as appropriate for use in all of the countries that are signatories to the treaties mentioned above.
Creative Commons also offers ported versions of its six, core international licenses for many distinct jurisdictions (usually jurisdiction = country, but not always). These ported licenses are based on the international license suite and differ only in that they have been modified to reflect any local nuances in how legal terms and conditions are expressed, drafting protocols and, of course, language. The ported licenses and the international licenses are all intended to be legally effective anywhere.
Should I choose an international license or a ported license?
That depends. There are several reasons why the international licenses may be preferable for a licensor, even if the licenses have been ported to his or her jurisdiction. CC, for example, licenses all of its own content under an international license because, among other things, the international licenses are essentially jurisdiction-neutral while remaining effective globally. The neutral nature of the international licenses appeals to many people and organizations, particularly for use in connection with global projects that span political borders, a staple of digital culture today. Another reason the international licenses may be preferable is because the ported licenses for a particular jurisdiction may not always be at the most updated and recommended version. The international licenses are always improved and updated before any others, since they are the licenses on which all of the ported licenses are based. Using the international licenses guarantees that the licensor has at his or her disposal the latest, recommended version.
Notwithstanding those benefits, some creators still choose a license ported to their local jurisdiction because there may be some specific laws in their jurisdiction that are not explicitly handled by the international licenses. For example, in the European Union some creators may prefer a ported license over an international license because all version 3.0 licenses ported to E.U. jurisdictions specifically address the European Database Directive as implemented in national laws. The international licenses do not address that directive. If the licenses have been ported to your jurisdiction and you feel that your jurisdiction's ported licenses account for some aspect of local legislation that the international licenses do not, then you may want to consider which license is better suited for your needs.
Questions for people thinking about using a Creative Commons-licensed work
Will Creative Commons give me permission to use a work?
The permission isn't ours to give. Creative Commons simply makes available licenses and tools to enable creators and licensors to license their works on more flexible terms. By applying a Creative Commons license to a work, the creator or licensor has decided to clearly signal to members of the public, such as you, that you may use the work without having to ask for permission—provided that you use it consistent with the license terms.
Does Creative Commons determine what content is released under its licenses?
Creative Commons, as an organization, does not control how the licenses are used and does not check or verify whether a Creative Commons license has been correctly applied to a particular work. Creative Commons does not endorse or certify any use of its licenses.
Instead, Creative Commons provides the licenses as a tool that may be adopted (or not) by members of the creative community. Creative Commons does not determine whether the use of the licenses is appropriate for your situation or for a particular work.
What are the terms of a Creative Commons license?
The key terms of the core suite of Creative Commons licenses are: Attribution, NonCommercial, NoDerivatives and ShareAlike. These license elements are succinctly described as follows:
- Attribution. You let people copy, distribute, display, perform, and remix your copyrighted work, as long as they give you credit the way you request. All CC licenses contain this property.
- NonCommercial. You let people copy, distribute, display, perform, and remix your work for non-commercial purposes only. If they want to use your work for commercial purposes, they must contact you for permission.
- ShareAlike. You let people create remixes and derivative works based on your creative work, as long as they only distribute them under the same Creative Commons license that your original work was published under.
- NoDerivatives. You let people copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work — not make derivative works based on it. If they want to alter, transform, build upon, or remix your work, they must contact you for permission.
For an overview of our licenses and links to the Commons Deed and Legal Code, check out this page.
So "NonCommercial" means that the work cannot be used commercially?
Not quite. The "NonCommercial" license option means that you do not receive the commercial rights via the Creative Commons license. You can always approach the licensor directly to see if they will separately license you the commercial rights.
What does the Creative Commons "Some Rights Reserved" button mean? What does a Creative Commons license do?
A Creative Commons license is a signal to you that you can use the work without having to seek out the individual creator or licensor and ask for permission—provided you use the work in the manner permitted by the Creative Commons license. The Commons Deed sets out the key terms governing your use of the work.
What happens if I want to make a different use of the work?
If you want to use a Creative Commons-licensed work in a manner that is not permitted under the terms of the Creative Commons license, you need to contact the creator and/or licensor and ask for their permission. If you use a Creative-Commons licensed work contrary to the terms of the Creative Commons license, your right to use the work terminates and you could be sued for infringement of copyright.
So I don't have to pay to use Creative Commons-licensed works if I comply with the license terms?
As a general rule yes—Creative Commons licenses are made available under royalty-free licenses. In the case of Creative Commons-licensed works that are licensed for NonCommercial use only, the creator or licensor reserves the right to collect statutory royalties or royalties under compulsory licenses for commercial uses such as those collected for public performances; so, you may still have to pay a collecting society for such uses of Creative Commons licensed works. However, these are indirect payments, not payments to the licensor.
How do I use a Creative Commons-licensed work?
If you come across a work that says it is made available under a Creative Commons license, you are authorized by the licensor to use it consistent with those license terms. You should satisfy yourself that the scope of the license covers your intended uses. Since there are a number of versions of the Creative Commons licenses, you should read the particular license carefully to ensure that the license meets your needs. All Creative Commons licenses require that you attribute the author, licensor and/or any other parties specified by the author/licensor. To correctly use a Creative Commons licensed work, you must provide proper attribution. This is explained in the answer below.
To get an understanding of the key terms of the license, check out the Commons Deed for the license and/or review this page, which has links to the Commons Deed and basic explanations of all of our licenses.
When are publicity rights relevant?
In the U.S., publicity rights allow individuals to control how their voice, image or likeness is used for commercial purposes in public. These rights are relevant to any work that contains human subjects, such as photographs, audio or video interviews, plays, songs, and other spoken or visual content. When transmitting this sort of content, including the voices or images of anyone other than yourself, you may need to get permission from those individuals if you are using their voice or images for commercial purposes. This is a distinct and separate obligation from obtaining the copyright license for the works itself, which only gives you a license from the author (or photographer) but not from the subjects. A Creative Commons license does not waive or otherwise affect the publicity rights of subjects.
Jurisdictions outside of the U.S. may have rights that are similar in effect to publicity and privacy rights. You may need to consider those other rights before using a CC licensed work that embodies a person's image, voice, or related spoken or visual content.
Our Podcasting Legal Guide has further discussion of publicity rights issues of general relevance.
Does using a Creative Commons-licensed work give me all the rights I need?
You should be aware that all of the licenses contain a disclaimer of warranties, so there is no assurance whatsoever that the licensor has all the necessary rights to permit reuse of the licensed work. The disclaimer means that the licensor is not guaranteeing anything about the work, including that she owns the copyright to it, or that she has cleared any uses of third-party content that her work may be based on or incorporate.
This is typical of so-called "open source" licenses, where works are made widely and freely available for reuse at no charge. The original version 1.0 of the Creative Commons licenses contained a warranty, but we ultimately concluded that, as with "open source" licenses, warranties and indemnities are best determined separately by private bargain, so that each licensor and licensee can determine the appropriate allocation of risk and reward for their unique situation. One option thus would be to use private contract to obtain a warranty and indemnification from the licensor, although it is likely that the licensor would charge for this benefit.
As a result of the warranty disclaimer, before using a Creative Commons licensed work, you should satisfy yourself that the person has all the necessary rights to make the work available under a Creative Commons license. You should know that if you are wrong, you could be liable for copyright infringement based on your use of the work.
You should learn about what rights need to be cleared and when a fair use or fair dealing defense may be available. It could be that the licensor is relying on the fair use or fair dealing doctrine, but depending on the circumstances, that legal defense may or may not actually protect her (or you). You should educate yourself about the various rights that may be implicated in a copyrighted work, because creative works often incorporate multiple elements such as, for example, underlying stories and characters, recorded sound and song lyrics. If the work contains recognizable third-party content, it may be advisable to independently verify that it has been authorized for reuse under a Creative Commons license. If the work contains images, voices, or likenesses of people, educate yourself about publicity rights.
Additionally, you should know that CC licenses do not give you permission to use any trademarks that may be associated with a CC licensed-work. You should ask the owner of a trademark for permission first.
The result of this is that you should always use your informed good judgment, and you may want to obtain legal advice.
How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?
All current CC licenses require that you attribute the original author(s). If the copyright holder has not specified any particular way to attribute them, this does not mean that you do not have to give attribution. It simply means that you will have to give attribution to the best of your ability with the information you do have. Generally speaking, this implies five things:
- If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, you must leave those notices intact, or reproduce them in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which you are re-publishing the work.
- Cite the author's name, screen name, user identification, etc. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice to link that name to the person's profile page, if such a page exists.
- Cite the work's title or name, if such a thing exists. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice to link the name or title directly to the original work.
- Cite the specific CC license the work is under. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice if the license citation links to the license on the CC website.
- If you are making a derivative work or adaptation, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work i.e., "This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author]." or "Screenplay based on [original work] by [author]."
In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner of attribution, in addition to the requirement of leaving intact existing copyright notices, they are only able to require certain things. Namely:
- They may require that you attribute the work to a certain name, pseudonym or even an organization of some sort.
- They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work.
If you are interested to see what an actual license ("legalcode") has to say about attribution, you can use the CC Attribution 3.0 Unported license as an example. Please note that this is only an example, and you should always read the appropriate section of the specific license in question ... usually, but perhaps not always, section 4(b) or 4(c):
Do I need to be aware of anything else when providing attribution or credit?
Yes, you need to be careful not to imply that you or your use of a work is connected to, or sponsored or endorsed by, the author, licensor or attribution party, without their permission. Wrongfully implying that an author, publisher or anyone else endorses your use of a work may be unlawful. We make the obligation not to imply endorsement explicit in all of our licenses, and on the face of our CC0 and Public Domain Mark deeds.
What is a derivative work?
A derivative work is a work that is based on another work but is not an exact, verbatim copy. What this means exactly and comprehensively is the subject of many law journal articles and much debate and pontification. In general, a translation from one language to another or a film version of a book are examples of derivative works. Under Creative Commons' core licenses, synching music in timed-relation with a moving image is considered to be a derivative work.
It's important to note, however, that the Creative Commons licenses allow the user to exercise the rights permitted under the license in any format or media, even in the NoDerivatives licenses. This means that, under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license, for example, you can copy the work from a digital file to a print file consistent with the terms of that license.
If I use a Creative Commons-licensed work with other works, do I have to Creative Commons license everything else as well?
With the exception of those of our licenses that contain the ShareAlike element, the Creative Commons licenses do not require everything else to be Creative Commons licensed as well. We specifically designed the Creative Commons licenses so that they would not turn all other works they were combined with into being Creative Commons-licensed. If you combine any work with a Creative Commons-licensed work that is licensed with a ShareAlike license provision, then, because of the way that the ShareAlike license element operates, the resultant work will need to be licensed under the same license as the original work.
If you include a Creative Commons licensed work in a "collective work" (ie. a collection of works in their exact original format, not adaptations), then you only need to continue to apply the Creative Commons license to that work (even if the work was licensed under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license provision). You do not need to apply it to the entire collection.
Can I combine two different Creative Commons licensed works? Can I combine a Creative Commons licensed work with another non-CC licensed work?
Generally yes; you can combine one Creative Commons licensed work with another Creative Commons licensed work or with another work.
The one big caveat is for Creative Commons licenses that contain the ShareAlike license element (ie. Attribution-ShareAlike, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike). These licenses require derivative works (ie. the result of two combined works) to be licensed under the same license elements. So, you cannot, for example, combine an Attribution-ShareAlike license with an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. If you are combining a work licensed under a ShareAlike license condition, you need to make sure that you are happy and able to license the resulting work under the same license conditions as the original work.
If I use a Creative Commons-licensed work to create a new work (ie a derivative work or adaptation), which Creative Commons license can I use for my new work?
The chart below should give you some assistance in figuring out which Creative Commons license you can use on your new work. Some of our licenses just do not, as practical matter, work together.
The green boxes indicate license compatibility. That is, you may use the license indicated in the top row for your derivative work or adaptation, or for a collective work. The blank rows for the by-nc-nd and by-nd licenses indicate that derivative works or adaptations are not permitted by the license of the original work, therefore you are never allowed to re-license them.
Compatibility chart | Terms that can be used for a derivative work or adaptation | |||||||
by | by-nc | by-nc-nd | by-nc-sa | by-nd | by-sa | pd | ||
Status of original work | pd | |||||||
by | ||||||||
by-nc | ||||||||
by-nc-nd | ||||||||
by-nc-sa | ||||||||
by-nd | ||||||||
by-sa |
Abbreviation Key
Fair use note: CC Licenses do not change, alter, or modify fair use rights. You may still use fair use rights to incorporate CC works for any qualifying purpose.
This chart is not a substitute for obtaining your own legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or represented as legal advice.
I'm collecting a number of different works together into one resource. Can I include Creative Commons-licensed material?
All the Creative Commons licenses allow the original work to be included in collections such as anthologies, encyclopedias and broadcasts. However, you still have to follow the license the original material is under. For example, material under any of the Creative Commons Noncommercial licenses cannot be included in a collection that is going to be used commercially. The table below will help you work out whether you can include the Creative Commons-licensed material in your collection.
Note that when you include a Creative Commons licensed work in a collection, you must keep the work under the same license. This doesn't mean the whole collection has to be put under the Creative Commons license – just the original work.
Original Work | Commercial Collected Work | NonCommercial Collected Work |
pd | ||
by | ||
by-nc | ||
by-nc-nd | ||
by-nc-sa | ||
by-nd | ||
by-sa |
Can I change the terms of a CC license or waive some of its conditions?
You can change any of our licenses, but if you do so you should know that your modified license is not likely to be compatible with CC's licenses. Also, if you change our licenses then you cannot say that your work is licensed under a CC license. Read our policies for more information.
This doesn't mean, however, that if a user of your work comes to you and asks permission to do (or not do) something the license says she must not do (or do), that you can't agree to that. Our licenses anticipate that a licensor may want to waive compliance with a specific condition, such as attribution. Our 3.0 licenses specifically allow this to happen, so long as the waiver or consent is in writing and signed.
Technical Questions
I want to give users of my site the option to choose Creative Commons licensing; how do I do that?
You can directly integrate the Creative Commons license selection engine into your site. This can be useful if you have an application or website that allows people to contribute content and you want to give them the option to apply Creative Commons licenses to their works. Here is a step-by-step guide on how to integrate our license selection engine with a website. We also have a web services API for integration with any application.
Why did Creative Commons choose to use the RDF format for its metadata?
Creative Commons looked for the best way to express the intent behind the licenses in machine-readable form. We feel that our system provides the best of all possible worlds: RDF, XML, and even plain text-based tools can easily process our metadata files because we provide them with a structured format. But just as XML tools make it easier to process the information than text-based ones, RDF ones make it even easier -- so we encourage all of our developers to use RDF tools where possible. We're also working with the community to provide CC sample code, in many different languages, that shows how easy it is to take advantage of the RDF information. We're also open to providing converters from RDF to other formats. If you have such a tool or would like one, please send information about it to our metadata list.
How can I use Creative Commons metadata in my program?
You can use it in a variety of ways. A painting, writing, or drawing program could let its users know about their rights granted by the licensor of the file. File sharing software could highlight files with Creative Commons licenses and encourage users to download them. In fact, we see peer-to-peer file sharing software as an excellent distribution mechanism for Creative Commons works, especially large music, picture, and movie files that the authors might not have the bandwidth or tools necessary to distribute themselves. Search systems could allow users the choice of only searching for files with licenses that permit certain uses (such as searching for pictures of cats that you can include in your non-commercial collage). There are many ways to take advantage of this information and we hope the developer community will surprise us by coming up with others!
I'd prefer to use a PNG image instead of a GIF image or vice versa. What should I do?
We provide older license buttons in both formats. Change, e.g., somerights20.gif to somerights20.png or vice versa.
Newer license buttons that include license property icons are only available in PNG format.
Questions about using Creative Commons' logo
Where can I get a high resolution version of the Creative Commons logos?
You can get high resolution versions of the Creative Commons logos and license buttons here. Creative Commons only authorizes the use of our logos, name and license buttons in accordance with our policies.
I want to print out some t-shirts & stickers with Creative Commons logos; how do I go about doing this?
We're glad you are excited about Creative Commons and want to spread the message. We only authorize use of our logo, name and license buttons in accordance with our policies, ie. to linkback to the Creative Commons website, a Creative Commons license and/or otherwise describe a Creative Commons license that applies to a work.
You can support Creative Commons and purchase t-shirts and stickers via our store. In addition, movies about Creative Commons are available for download here.
I want to incorporate the Creative Commons logos into my site or work, can I?
You are welcome to incorporate the Creative Commons logos into your site or work if you do so in accordance with our policies page. Basically, we only authorize use of the Creative Commons corporate logo (that is the name Creative Commons and the "CC" in a circle) to link back to our website; and our "Some Rights Reserved" and "No Rights Reserved" buttons as well as our license element buttons (ie. the Attribution license button, the NonCommercial license button etc.) to be used to link back to our respective licenses.
Can I change the Creative Commons logos so that they look better on my site or with my work?
Please don't change our logo so that it works better with the look of your site or work. Our "Some Rights Reserved" and "No Rights Reserved" buttons need to be used consistently because they are our trademark and a core part of our licensing system. You can also use the license elements buttons that are in black and white to signal that your work or site is licensed under the relevant Creative Commons license; this is also explained at our policies page.
About Creative Commons
Is Creative Commons against copyright?
Not at all. Our licenses help you retain your copyright and manage your copyright in a more flexible, open way. In fact, our licenses rely upon copyright for their enforcement. The justification for intellectual property protection (under U.S. law, at least) is the "promot[ion of] the progress of science and the useful arts." We want to promote science and the useful arts, too, and believe that helping creators or licensors fine-tune the exercise of their rights to suit their preferences helps do just that.
Is Creative Commons building a database of licensed content?
Absolutely not. We believe in the Net, not an information bank controlled by a single organization. We are building tools so that the semantic web can identify and sort licensed works in a distributed, decentralized manner. We are not in the business of collecting content, or building databases of content.
Now, to give you an idea of the sorts of uses that can be made of our licenses and metadata, we've provided some examples on our site for text, audio, images, video and educational works. It's by no means a comprehensive catalog of everything being done with Creative Commons licenses today, nor is it the beginnings of a database. They are simply illustrations of some works, in a variety of media, that have been Creative Commons licensed so far.
Will works that use Creative Commons licenses be in the "public domain"?
No, because the licensor does not give up all rights to his or her work. The Creative Commons licenses are only copyright licenses that enable you to control how other people use your work.
If you want to put your work in the public domain -- the realm of creative material unfettered by copyright law – you can use our public domain waiver, CC0. By dedicating your work to the public domain, you are effectively relinquishing all copyright interests you may otherwise have in the work. See the CC0 FAQ for further details.
What is Creative Commons?
Structurally, Creative Commons is a Massachusetts, US, US charitable corporation . Also working to promote the idea of Creative Commons are volunteer project leads in each of the jurisdictions to which Creative Commons licenses have been ported. Creative Commons International and the volunteer project leads are independent and separate entities although both work in collaboration to promote the adoption of Creative Commons licenses and tools.
The idea underlying Creative Commons is that some people may not want to exercise all of the intellectual property rights the law affords them. We believe there is an unmet demand for an easy yet reliable way to tell the world "Some rights reserved" or even "No rights reserved." Many people have long since concluded that all-out copyright doesn't help them gain the exposure and widespread distribution they want. Many entrepreneurs and artists have come to prefer relying on innovative business models rather than full-fledged copyright to secure a return on their creative investment. Still others get fulfillment from contributing to and participating in an intellectual commons. For whatever reasons, it is clear that many citizens of the Internet want to share their work -- and the power to reuse, modify, and distribute their work -- with others on generous terms. Creative Commons intends to help people express this preference for sharing by offering the world a set of licenses on our Website, at no charge.
Who started Creative Commons?
Cyberlaw and intellectual property experts James Boyle, Michael Carroll, and Lawrence Lessig, MIT computer science professor Hal Abelson, lawyer-turned-documentary filmmaker-turned-cyberlaw expert Eric Saltzman, and public domain Web publisher Eric Eldred founded Creative Commons in 2001. Fellows and students at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School helped get the project off the ground and, for the first couple of years of its existence, Creative Commons was housed at and received generous support from Stanford Law School and the Center for Internet & Society.
What problem does Creative Commons intend to solve?
With the advent of the digital revolution and the Internet, it is suddenly possible to distribute works in a variety of formats of a high, often professional quality; to work collaboratively across contexts; and to create new, derivative or collective works—on a global level, in a decentralised manner, and at comparatively low cost.
This presents an opportunity for an enormous and unprecedented stimulation of creativity and production of knowledge. As more and more people are interconnected and communicating, it becomes easier to obtain exactly the content one needs or want and to complete tasks and solve problems by the cooperation this interconnection enables. The convergence of technologies and media also create multiple new possibilities for creating derivatives of existing works -- for example, remixes and mashups.
Another notable aspect is that globalization is not only happening on the corporate level, its effects can also be observed in the areas of science and education and in other sectors of society where new models of fruitful cooperation have appeared. The free encyclopedia Wikipedia and the free and open source software community are examples of these sociological and economic phenomena. The activities of many contributors to projects in these areas are not motivated by the desire to gain (immediate) financial benefit but by the desire to learn, to get recognition, and also to help others.
The downside of these exciting new developments and possibilities is that the new technologies can also be used to violate the rights of copyright owners as they are currently defined. In turn, major right holders have reacted to this by a fourfold strategy: (a) by trying to prevent the deployment of technologies that can be put to infringing uses; (b) by developing tools that enable them to manage their rights with an amount of precision hitherto unknown and unthinkable: digital rights management and technological protection measures against unauthorised copying; (c) by successfully lobbying for support of these technological measures through legal restrictions; and, (d) by starting huge publicity campaigns designed to teach young people that they must keep their hands off copyrighted material - or else.
These responses are understandable, if regrettable. Our concern is that their combined effect will be to stifle the opportunities for digital technologies to be used widely to encourage creativity and for the problem-solving and collaboration discussed above. If creators and licensors have to negotiate not only complicated legal rules, but also burdensome technical barriers, many will either ignore the rules or not create.
Our alternative is to provide creators and licensors with a simple way to say what freedoms they want their creative work to carry. This in turn makes it easy to share, or build upon creative work. It makes it possible for creators and licensors to reserve some rights while releasing others. This, at its core, is our mission. Copyright gives authors certain rights. We want to make it simpler for authors to exercise those rights in ways others can understand.
Does it cost me anything to use the Creative Commons licenses & tools?
Nope. They're free.
Who funds Creative Commons?
Creative Commons was built with and is sustained by the generous support of organizations including the Center for the Public Domain, Omidyar Network, The Rockefeller Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, as well as members of the public. We continue to seek donations from other sources, including foundations, individuals, and government grants. If you would like to support Creative Commons, feel free to do so at our support page.
Whom does Creative Commons serve or represent?
Creative Commons serves creators and users of creative works and the public interest that benefits from greater collaboration using creative materials. We help people who want to license their work on generous terms, people who want to make creative uses of those works, and people who benefit from this symbiosis. We hope that teachers, scholars, scientists, writers, photographers, filmmakers, musicians, graphic designers, Web hobbyists -- as well as listeners, readers, and viewers -- gain from the use of our tools.
Where is Creative Commons based?
Creative Commons Corporation is a Massachusetts corporation that draws on the work of geographically distributed staff and volunteers. Our main offices are in San Francisco and Boston in the United States and Berlin in Germany. See our contact page.
Does Creative Commons host or own any content?
Our primary mission is to help you license your work, offer you tools to more easily publish your works, and point to examples of CC-licensed content from our featured works. We also offer ways for users to find licensed works and easily understand their license terms.
Is Creative Commons involved in digital rights management (DRM)?
No. We are in the business of digital rights expression, not management. Our tools make it easy to say what rights an author is reserving. But we do not provide tools for enforcing the rights the author reserves. Digital rights management (or "DRM") does. In addition to digitally expressing rights, a DRM system provides technology for enforcing those rights.
Why don't we use technology to enforce rights? There are too many reasons to describe here. Perhaps the most familiar is the fact that technology cannot protect freedoms such as "fair use." Put differently, "fair use" can't be coded. But more importantly, we believe, technological enforcement burdens unplanned creative reuse of creative work. We want to encourage such use. And we, along with many others, are concerned that the ecology for creativity will be stifled by the pervasive use of technology to "manage" rights.
Copyrights should be respected, no doubt. But we prefer they be respected the old fashioned way — by people acting to respect the freedoms, and limits, chosen by the author and enforced by the law.
What happens if someone tries to restrict a CC-licensed work with digital rights management (DRM) tools?
If a person uses DRM tools to restrict any of the rights granted in the license, that person violates the license. All of our licenses prohibit licensees from "impos(ing) any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License."
Encryption or an access limitation is not necessarily a technical protection measure prohibited by the licenses. For example, content sent via email and encrypted with the recipient's public key does not restrict use of the Work by the recipient. Likewise, limiting recipients to a set of users (e.g., with a username and password) does not restrict use of the Work by the recipients.
In the cases above, encryption or an access limitation is not incompatible with the prohibition on DRM because the recipient is not prevented from exercising all rights granted by the license (including rights of further redistribution). If, however, encryption is implemented in such as way as to prevent the recipient from exercising any right granted by the license, then that would constitute a violation of this provision.
I love what Creative Commons does. How can I help?
We would be very grateful for your help. You are welcome to support Creative Commons Corporation by making a donation at our Support page. In exchange for your donation, you'll receive a variety of items, depending on level. Donations and shipping addresses are handled by Paypal.
You can also give us feedback directly at email@example.com. Alternately, you can participate in our email discussion lists.


text:
By Woodrow Bellamy III | March 20, 2014 Send Feedback
Airbus has completed the second initial 4D (i4D) trajectory flight trials as part of a joint project with other members of the government-industry Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) Joint Undertaking team. i4D, a technology designed to ensure aircraft flight trajectories remain synchronized between air and ground throughout all stages of flight, will facilitate more direct paths between destinations in Europe, according to Airbus.
The first trials were conducted in 2012, in an effort to measure the effectiveness of i4D's ability to reduce fuel burn and CO2 emissions derived from new Air Traffic Management (ATM) procedures. The SESAR team's goal is to reduce the environmental impact per flight by 10 percent, as well as reduce delays with shorter and more direct flights.
"This second flight trial validates further that the sharing of trajectory information between the air and ground can enable a safer and more efficient handling and certainty of flight profiles. The flight trial confirmed that i4D offers important safety and environmental gains, with reductions in fuel costs, increased flight predictability and overall network efficiency," Airbus said.
The latest trial was conducted with an outward route Toulouse¬ – Copenhagen – Stockholm, using a Honeywell Flight Management System (FMS), and a return route using a Thales FMS.
If the validation flights continue to prove successful, i4D will be deployed throughout Europe in 2018.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Home
- Services
- Public Safety & Court
- Animal Control
- Animal Complaints
Animal Complaints
Report a Problem
To report a problem with an uncontrolled animal or to report an excessively noisy animal, please contact the city's Animal Control office at 205-444-7760. Please do not attempt to restrain or capture animals - the city's Animal Control officers are highly skilled and have been trained to work with animals in a professional and caring manner.A citizen's complaint about an animal may proceed through the Municipal Court process under certain circumstances. The following steps must be taken to formalize and elevate a complaint to the Hoover Municipal Court.
- You must file a police report that will document specific details about the complaint. You may do this by coming by the Hoover Police Department on the 1st floor at the Hoover Municipal Building (100 Municipal Drive). During business hours you may call 205-444-7700.
- After you have filed the report, you should proceed to the Court Magistrate's office, located in the Public Safety Center. A court magistrate will interview you and review documentation and evidence that you possess. In the case of a barking dog, you and one other neighbor, who is also bothered by the noise will need to complete a sworn deposition.
- The magistrate will determine if probable cause exists.
- If probable cause is found to exist, a letter will be sent to the owner of the animal describing the problem and citing the violations of municipal code. In the letter, the owner of the animal will be asked to meet with the magistrate in an attempt to develop a solution to the problem.
- If the problem persists, all parties will be summoned to court and the municipal judge will issue a ruling on the charges against the owner of the animal.
Please keep in mind that the animal's owner has the right to know the name of the complainant. The Court Magistrate Office cannot withhold that information.


text:
SRD:Color Spray
This material is published under the OGL |
Illusion (Pattern) [Mind-Affecting] | |
Level: | Sorcerer/Wizard 1 |
Components: | V, S, M |
Casting time: | 1 standard action |
Range: | 15 ft. |
Area: | Cone-shaped burst |
Duration: | Instantaneous; see text |
Saving Throw: | Will negates |
Spell Resistance: | Yes |
A vivid cone of clashing colors springs forth from your hand, causing creatures to become stunned, perhaps also blinded, and possibly knocking them unconscious.
Each creature within the cone is affected according to its Hit Dice.
2 HD or less: The creature is unconscious, blinded, and stunned for 2d4 rounds, then blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1 round. (Only living creatures are knocked unconscious.)
3 or 4 HD: The creature is blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, then stunned for 1 round.
5 or more HD: The creature is stunned for 1 round.
Sightless creatures are not affected by color spray.
Material Component: A pinch each of powder or sand that is colored red, yellow, and blue.
Back to Main Page → System Reference Document → Spells


text:
And the Babe of the Week is…Carolina Spidel
It's time once again to crown a Babe of the Week, and this week, we've got Carolina on our mind…and our screensavers.
Carolina Spidel is our Babe of the Week. It was close (as always) but Carolina was on the minds (and voting fingers) of the people.
Carolina is a 25-year-old model from Orlando, Florida. Her nationality is a mix of Polish, German, Irish, Italian, and Native American which pretty much covers all the important countries.
Here's the deal: At the end of the week, each Babe of the Day will compete for your votes and the winner will become Babe of the Week. Each week's winner will then face off to become Babe of the Month, and those winners will then duke it out for – you guessed it – the Babe of the Year title. Only those lucky ladies will be inducted into GuySpeed's Hall of Fame, an honor reserved for the hottest of babes.


text:
Scientific American has a nice piece on how humans may still be evolving over the next millennium. Since we can now adapt our environment to ourselves, we often assume that evolution has basically ended. However the article points out:
"But DNA techniques, which probe genomes both present and past, have unleashed a revolution in studying evolution; they tell a different story. Not only has Homo sapiens been doing some major genetic reshuffling since our species formed, but the rate of human evolution may, if anything, have increased. In common with other organisms, we underwent the most dramatic changes to our body shape when our species first appeared, but we continue to show genetically induced changes to our physiology and perhaps to our behavior as well. "
We just have to keep breeding ourselves smarter and hopefully we will be able to solve the challenges in the next 1000 years… Happy holidays all.


text:
Your shopping cart is empty!
Duck & Sail provides to you and for your yacht the excellent Sailing Boots delivered straight from our European warehouses. Save your money for fun in the sun and order Sailing Boots on-line with the best price. With passion for the sea we have selected Sailing Boots and other quality products for sailing, water sports, power boating and various outdoor activities for you to enjoy. Buy Sailing Boots now and get your best deal - from sailor to sailor!


text:
Part 1 of 3
1. Introduction
This is the second of two essays on the Germanic cosmology or worldview. In the first essay ("The Fourfold") I explored the very idea of a "world" itself, freely adapting Martin Heidegger's analysis of the four moments of human "dwelling": earth, sky, divinities, and mortals.
To briefly summarize: Mortals live on the sheltering earth, underneath the sky. Living between earth and sky, mortals live between concealing and revealing, or concealing and truth. They draw things out of concealment and into the light, striving for the ideal of truth, clarity, and illumination represented by the daylight sky – while all the time recognizing that revealing never completely triumphs over concealing. The open sky never completely triumphs over the mystery of the sheltering, concealing earth. The very mortality of the mortals opens them to the uncanniness of Being itself: wonder in the face of the fact that things are at all. And in this wonder, they encounter the constants of existence: the immortals, the gods.
This mortal existence – living between the sheltering earth and the mercurial sky, in awareness of divine presence – is what Heidegger calls dwelling. And in dwelling Heidegger says that we bring forth a world. The world does not mean the planet or the universe. The world we live in is a "place," but it is a place shaped through our attempts to understand, to bring things into the light, and to express what we have discovered. The world, in other words, is a human world. It is earth and sky, and all that lies therein, as encountered – primarily – in the form of myth and poetry.
Poetry speaks when human beings are struck with wonder in the face of Being. Poetry – which includes myth – registers the Being of beings. It is the most basic thing about us that makes us human. Poetry is expressed in language, but Heidegger tells us that the primary purpose of language is to register Being. We are the beings who register and communicate Being in language, and we live in a world that is structured and informed by language. Human beings erect an alternate conceptual or linguistic universe of ideas, generalizations, classifications, myths, stories, theories, ideals, and standards (moral and otherwise). When we do anything at all we are always simultaneously going through this conceptual counter world as well.
But conceptual worlds change – and may even be lost to us. When our ancestors walked on this earth, they walked though the words of their poets. And the poets told them that they dwelt at the intersection of eight worlds, with their world, the ninth world, in the middle. We have lost their world – or worlds. Is there a way back? In this essay I will attempt to find such a way.
In the next section, I will give an account of the details of the Germanic cosmology. I will draw freely from the available sources (chiefly the Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson) and weave together a brief summary of the mythic material. My concern here is not to offer an exhaustive survey of all the Germanic cosmological information available in the primary sources, and still less am I concerned to identify where individual points are to be found in different source texts. (Interested readers can consult the sources on their own.) My aims here are not scholarly.
My summary of the Germanic cosmology will attempt to present the available information in a coherent, non-contradictory account. As we shall see, however, this will prove extremely difficult. But this very difficulty will point us toward a way to recover the cosmology of our ancestors. And this will go well beyond merely summarizing what we know about its curious details. My real objective, in fact, will become an attempt to approach the cosmology from within and to make it our own. But getting to that point involves a difficult journey.
2. Overview of the Germanic Cosmology
As is well known, our ancestors believed in the existence of nine, interrelated "worlds." The central world is the one that we are on, Midhgardhr. The other worlds exist on two planes in relation to us: a vertical plane, and a horizontal plane. On the vertical plane, two worlds exist above Midhgardhr and two worlds below. But these are not "north" and "south." The four geographic directions all exist on the horizontal plane, and in each direction – north, south, east, and west – is a world.[1]
Let's begin on the horizontal plane with north and south, for the worlds there precede all the others in time. In the south is Muspellsheimr, which (according to the Prose Edda), is actually the first world that existed. (The Prose Edda does not make it clear if Muspellshemr was first in the sense of being eternal, or first to be – somehow – created.) Muspellsheimr is a world of fire. We don't have much information as to its inhabitants. In fact, all we really know is that the fire giant Surtr lives there. It is said that he will burn the whole world when Ragnarok comes. (The universe begins and ends with fire – and begins again. . . .)
After Muspellsheimr, Snorri tells us that Niflheimr came to be made in the north (though how it was made is a mystery). For some time, only these two worlds existed and – between them – Ginnungagap. This is a kind of void whose name has been interpreted as "yawning gap," but – more interestingly – as "magical (and creative) power-filled space."[2] I'm not going to dwell on the Germanic account of creation, because my purpose here is to discuss cosmology (the structure of the cosmos), not cosmogony (its origin). Nevertheless, it should be noted that what we have at the beginning is not a cosmos in the true, Greek sense of order (κόσμος).
In Niflheimr eleven rivers flow from a well called Hvergelmir. The eleven rivers are collectively referred to as Élivágar. These rivers are filled with eitrkvika, which has been translated as "yeasty venom."[3] Why are these rivers filled with venom? Well, Snorri tells us that they are filled with countless serpents. When the rivers flow far from Hvergelmir and into Ginnungagap, their waters harden into ice. This ice is then struck by sparks and embers flung off from Muspellsheimr.
The rest of the creation story will be very familiar to many of my readers. The frost giant Ymir – progenitor of the other frost giants – is created from the combination of fire and ice. The giant has a humanoid form, and this is an important point. The very first definite thing created by the purely impersonal, unplanned collision of fire and ice is something like an initial sketch of the human.[4] Ymir survives by drinking the milk of the cow Audhumla, while she survives by licking a salty ice block. Soon, "a man" named Buri, who was "handsome and tall and strong" is formed out of the ice block.[5] Here again, we see that it is as if the human is the telos of creation. Something approaching the human keeps popping up automatically out of the interaction of material forces, without anything seeming to direct the process. (As Hegel said, "the very stones cry out and raise themselves to Spirit."[6])
However, it is only with the grandchildren of Bor – Ódhinn, Vili, and Vé – that true consciousness (or, rather, self-consciousness) comes on the scene. Prior to them, things happen, but in a kind of disordered, chaotic fashion. This is most apparent in how generation takes place in this earlier, "Titanic" period.[7] A "man" is licked out of a salt block; out of Ymir's left armpit grow a man and woman; one of Ymir's legs mates with the other and produces a son (from whom the frost ogres are descended), etc.
Ódhinn, Vili, and Vé kill Ymir, drag his body into the center of Ginnungagap, and construct the cosmos out of his parts. The cosmos – an ordered system of the gods' own design – comes into being where once there had been only chaos. In the center of this cosmos the gods build Midhgardhr, a "stronghold" for men (whom they create out of two trees, Ask and Embla; see my essay "The Gifts of Ódhinn and his Brothers"). Midhgardhr is round, and is encircled by a world ocean. According to Snorri, giants occupy most of the beach front property, while humans live inland.
The gods also build a world for themselves in the heavens: Ásgardhr . A rainbow bridge, Bifröst, connects the domain of the gods to the earth. Also in heaven (presumably between Midgardhr and Ásgardhr) is the realm of the "light elves," Alfheimr (or Ljóssálfheimr – "home of the light elves"). These beings are "light" in contrast to the "dark elves" or dwarfs. Snorri tells us that the dwarfs were born in the flesh of Ymir (i.e., the earth) through spontaneous generation (they "quickened in the earth" like maggots). Thus, they are indirectly the creation of the gods, who chose to endow them with "human understanding and the appearance of men."[8] The realm of the dark elves, under the earth, is Svartálfheimr. And below this, at the furthest below of all, is Hel, the realm of the dead.
So far we have surveyed seven worlds, including all those that lie along the vertical plane:
Muspellsheimr (S) Midgardhr Niflheimr (N)
Two more worlds remain to be discussed, both of which are to be found on the horizontal plane. West of Midgardr is Vanaheimr, home of the Vanir. These are chthonic gods, gods of fertility: Freya, Freyr, Njördhr, Ing, and possibly others. Which of the Vanir actually live in Vanaheimr is not clear, however. Freya is found among the Aesir in Ásgardhr , while Freyr is actually supposed to live in Alfheimr. In the east, opposite Vanaheimr, is Jötunheimr (or Utgardhr): home of the Etins, or giants.[9] (Although, as we have seen, giants are to be found elsewhere: in Muspellsheimr and in Midgardhr.)
Now, in addition to the foregoing description of the nine "worlds," our brief tour of the universe would not be complete without an account of the world tree Yggdrasil, which Snorri describes as an ash. (As we shall see, however, squaring Yggdrasil with the system of nine worlds presents some difficult problems.) First of all, Snorri tells us that "its branches spread out over the whole world and reach up over heaven." The tree has three roots: one is "among the Aesir." Under this root is the spring of Urdhr, where the gods hold their council of justice. The second is "among the frost giants where once was Ginnungagap." Under this root is the well of Mimir, which Ódhinn drank from at the cost of one of his eyes.
The third root extends into Niflheim, and under it is the aforementioned well Hvergelmir.[10] The great serpent Nídhhögg gnaws at this root. In the upper branches of Yggdrasil sits a wise eagle and betwixt its eyes perches a hawk called Verdhrfölnir ("weather-bleached one"). A squirrel called Ratatosk scampers up and down Yggdrasil carrying "words of abuse" between the eagle and Nídhhögg. Four harts (i.e., deer) dwell in the branches of the ash, leaping about and eating its foliage. These harts and Nídhhögg together bring great pain to Yggdrasil, and to ameliorate this the Norns (fates) sprinkle the tree with water from Urdhr's well.
3. "Problems" with the Germanic Cosmology
Now, the above treatment of the Germanic universe omits a good deal, and glides over quite a lot of problems. The problems are basically of two sorts. One has to do with reconciling inconsistencies. The different sources actually give us conflicting information – and the conflicting information is sometimes to be found in a single source (e.g., Snorri). The second problem has to do with concretizing or visualizing the information we are given. For now, I will give some examples of the inconsistencies in the accounts that have come down to us, restricting myself mainly to Snorri. I will note right away, however, that my view of all of these "problems" is very positive. I will argue in the conclusion to this essay that we should view them as stepping stones in a kind of dialectic that will carry us beyond a wrongheaded, overly-literal approach to the cosmology of our ancestors, and closer to our goal of actually entering into and reappropriating how they saw the world.
Let's consider a few items, in no particular order. Snorri tells us at one point that one of the eleven rivers in Niflheim, Gjöll, is "next to Hel's gate." However, Niflheimr is supposed to exist to the north of Midgardhr, on the horizontal plane. Hel exists on the lowest point of the vertical plane, below Midgardhr and the realm of the dwarfs. How can a river in Niflheim adjoin any part of Hel? Actually, the issue of the relation between Niflheim and Hel is fraught with difficulties. Some sources actually locate Hel in Niflheim. And sometimes Hel is a goddess (the goddess of death), sometimes a location that may take its name from the goddess.[11]
The information we have about Midgardhr is rather confusing as well. In some sources Midgardhr seems to denote our earth itself. In Snorri, however, Midhgardhr is actually a "stronghold" occupying part of the earth, built out of Ymir's eyebrows by the gods and intended to provide human beings protection from the hostility of the giants (who, as noted earlier, occupy the land closest to the encircling world ocean: Utgardhr, the "outer world" or "area outside"). There are problems with the nature of Ásgardhr as well. According to Snorri, after creating humans and giving them Midgardhr to live in, the gods create Ásgardhr for themselves "in the middle of the world." And within Ásgardhr is the hall known as Hlidhskálf, with Ódhinn's high seat.
Snorri tells us that Midgardhr is built "round the world" but inland, away from the giant-occupied lands near the encircling ocean. This suggests that Ásgardhr is in the middle of Midhgardhr; a fortress within a fortress. The picture that emerges is one of interlocking circles:
However, later on when writing about what is to be found in heaven, Snorri tells us of a hall built by Ódhinn called Valaskjálf ("Hall of the slain" = Valhalla). In this hall is the "high seat known as Hlidhskálf" from which Ódhinn can survey the entire world.[12] Earlier, however, we are told that Hlidhskálf is in Ásgardhr "in the middle of the world" (again, presumably in the middle of Midhgardhr). Snorri further suggests that the Aesir are in heaven, rather than on earth, when he speaks of the roots of Yggdrasil – though here the account is confusing as well.
As noted earlier, one root is "among the Aesir," the second is "among the frost giants," and the third "extends over Niflheimr." However, just after mentioning all this (and what lies under each root) Snorri writes "the third root of the ash tree is in the sky, and under that root is the very sacred spring called the spring of Urdhr."[13] Now, this "third root" cannot be the one mentioned earlier, that "extends over Niflheim," under which is the well Hvergelmir. In fact, the second mention of the "third root" must refer to what is earlier referred to as the first root, which is "among the Aesir." This makes perfect sense, because Snorri tells us that it is at the well of Urdhr that "the gods hold their court of justice." But if the root that is "among the Aesir" is in the sky, then the dwelling place of the Aesir would seem to be in heaven, not on earth.
I might also mention that when Snorri speaks of the second root as being "among the frost giants" he specifies that this means "where once was Ginnungagap."[14] But earlier Snorri tells us that the gods created "the world" in the center of Ginnungagap, out of the parts of Ymir. This suggests that the universe itself occupies the space that once was Ginnungagap, and that this cannot thus be a distinct region inhabited by frost giants.
I have already noted that when speaking of "heaven" Snorri mentions "a great dwelling called Valaskjálf owned by Ódhinn." In the same section of text he mentions Alfheimr, the home of the light elves. Curiously, he then goes on to write:
It is said that there is another heaven to the south of and above this one, and it is called Andlang ["outstretched"]; and there is yet a third heaven above these ones which is called Vidhbláin, and we think that this place [the hall Gimlé] is there. At present, however, we think that it is inhabited only by light elves.[15]
One hardly knows where to begin. Is Andlang "south of and below" Ásgardhr? Or Alfheimr? Or are both Ásgardhr and Alheimr here thought of as being in one heaven? And what of the third heaven?
Let us now turn briefly to the difficulties surrounding Yggdrasil. At times, Snorri's descriptions seem to suggest that Yggdrasil grows on earth (i.e., on Midhgardhr). But, of course, this is impossible because it has roots in Niflheim and in heaven (in Ásgardhr , presumably). The location of the other root is problematic, as I've already indicated. In the Poetic Edda things are quite different: one root extends into Hel, another into the realm of the frost giants (Niflheimr?), and the third into Midhgardhr.[16] In Snorri, the High One is asked "Where is the chief place or sanctuary of the gods?" He answers: "It is by the ash tree Yggdrasil. There every day the gods have to hold a court."[17] This turns out to mean, however, that the gods hold court at the well of Urdhr, under one of Yggdrasil's roots.
On the other hand, Snorri also tells us that Yggdrasil's branches "spread out over the whole world and reach up over heaven."[18] We are being told simultaneously that Yggdrasil's branches reach up over heaven – and that one of its roots is in heaven as well. This is indeed a very strange tree. When we are told that Yggdrasil's branches "spread out over the whole world" this cannot simply mean Midhgardhr, for the simple reason that – as just noted – those branches reach up over heaven as well. So, "world" here seems to mean universe. It appears we are therefore supposed to imagine Yggdrasil stretching throughout all the different worlds.
Questions now abound. Where is the base of Yggdrasil (the base, not the roots)? How was it created? There is nothing in the account of the creation of the world out of Ymir to explain how Yggdrasil comes into being. Was it created by the gods? If so, it seems strange that Ódhinn would hang himself on his own creation in order to achieve runic wisdom. We've been given some basic sense of "where" the different worlds are vis-à-vis Midhgardhr, but perhaps a better question would be what are the different worlds? Midhgardhr is described as "round," but this doesn't mean that it is a ball. It is much more probably on the order of the ancient Greek conception of the earth as a kind of rounded plate with encircling ocean.
Is Ásgardhr a similar disc or plate hanging in heaven, somewhere within the foliage of Yggdrasil? Are Muspellsheimr, Niflheimr, Jötunheimr, and Vanaheimr to the north, south, east, and west of Midgardhr in the sense of all lying on the same earth? Or are they (as they are often visually depicted) physically detached "worlds" lying in those four directions? Is Hel "under" the earth in the sense of being deep within it or, again, in the sense of being a detached world? Things get even murkier when we look back to the Titanic era that precedes the arrival of the gods. Where are Ymir and Audhumla? The earth has not been created yet.
And are there really "nine worlds"? We have seen that it is not entirely clear, for example, if Midhgardhr is a separate world or an enclosure within a world. And it is not clear that there is a separate "world" of the giants, as the giants are sometimes spoken of as living at the outer edges of Midhgardhr. Further, we have also heard talk from Snorri about multiple "heavens" (which might put the number of worlds at more than nine). We find frequent talk about "nine worlds" among followers of today's Ásatrú movement, but perhaps this is mistaken.
And yet the seeress in Voluspa clearly says "I remember nine worlds."[19]
There are many more questions and problems that we could raise. Having raised them, two roads present themselves to us, and we have to decide which one we want to travel. One is to dismiss these mythic accounts as "primitive" and fraught with inconsistencies for the simple reason that they are the products of simple, primitive minds. I will assume I don't need to spend too much time convincing my readers of the arrogance and foolishness of this approach. We must entertain instead the possibility that we are dealing with a form of "thought" – a way of looking at the world – which is extraordinarily different from our modern way. And that it is our modern way that generates the sort of "problems" discussed above. We must entertain the idea that the "mytho-poetic thought" of our ancestors is, in fact, an extraordinarily subtle, powerful, and significant way not just of looking at the world, but of being in the world – and that it has been largely lost to us. I will return to the nature of mytho-poetic thought in the conclusion.
Recovering the worldview of our ancestors involves getting at it from within. Consider the following. Our ancestors stood on the same earth that we inhabit. When they gathered in clearings in the Teutoburg Forest they saw (mostly) the same flora and fauna that we do today. Yet though virtually the same images were presented to them, they saw quite differently. For these images were interpreted by them in very different terms.
For our ancestors, the trees were the hairs of Ymir. The rocks and pebbles at one's feet were Ymir's teeth and broken bones, the earth his decayed flesh. And beneath the earth there was another world, that of the dwarfs. Looking up to the bright heaven, one saw Ymir's brains floating by (the clouds), and above them – somewhere – one knew the elves were there. And, above them, the gods. After a rain, one could see Bifröst gleaming on the horizon – and one thought of the gods transiting back and forth between heaven and earth. At night one saw the sparks and embers of Muspellsheimer – the land in the distant south – hanging in the sky. And one hurried home through the forest, both fascinated and terrified by the possibility of encountering the one-eyed Wanderer.
Was all this believed in literally? Undoubtedly it was – but, as I will discuss in my conclusion, the concept of "literal belief" is trickier than most people assume it is, at least when we are discussing how our pre-modern ancestors thought and felt. Our ancestors could run their fingers through the soil and feel a chill, convinced they were handling the literal flesh of Ymir. But this type of experience was primarily a way in which things were given meaning, rather than literally "explained." Their experience of the natural and human worlds was overlaid with these meanings, which were understood to be true – but not exactly in the sense of what we mean by "literal truth." (Again, I will discuss this point more fully in my conclusion.)
There is a deeper truth than the literal. The truth, as Heidegger argues, is what reveals the world to us; that which brings things out of concealment. Myth does this. It lights up the world for us and helps us to see fundamental truths. Myth, which is taken by moderns to be synonymous with "falsehood" (e.g., "that's only a myth") is thus profound truth – truer than "literal truth," and truer than history.
Obviously, to find our way back into seeing the world as our ancestors did – to understand their worldview from within – is no easy task. It requires an insight into the inner meaning of the nine worlds discussed in section two above. But that is an ambitious undertaking. The following represents only a first step.
[1] However, the horizontal plane may actually be tilted – with the world in the north below the one in the south. This is because – as Edred Thorsson points out – the Indo-European root from which "north" is derived (*ner-) meant "under." See Edred Thorsson, Runelore (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 1987), 155.
[2] Because of the ginn-prefix, which is also found in terms denoting sacrality. See Jan De Vries, Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 167.
[3] See Snorri Sturluson, The Prose Edda, trans. Jean I. Young (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 33.
[4] Snorri's account seems to suggest that Audhumla appears after Ymir. However, it must be acknowledged that an argument can be made – based upon Snorri's text – that the two appear together.
[5] Prose Edda, 34.
[6] See G.W.F. Hegel, The Philosophy of Nature, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 15.
[7] A common mythological motif is the division of time into two periods: that of the Titans (as in Greek mythology), who pre-exist the gods – and that of the gods, who usurp the titans. The first period is a period of chaos – of disorder in the sense both of randomness and in the sense of a reign of monstrosities. The gods negate this and bring about an order of their own design, in which a regularity of cycles and patterns prevails. See my essay "The Missing Man in Norse Cosmogony" in Summoning the Gods (San Francisco: Counter-Currents Publishing, 2011).
[8] Prose Edda, 41.
[9] Edred Thorsson argues in Runelore (p. 188) that the Etins are not necessarily giants. Rudolf Simek disagrees, stating that ON jǫtunn is "the generic term for giants." See Simek, Dictionary of Northern Mythology (Rochester, NY: D.S. Brewer), 107.
[10] Prose Edda, 42-43.
[11] In Snorri's account, Hel is a goddess, the daughter of Loki. Snorri tells us that Ódhinn "threw Hel into Niflheimr and gave her authority over nine worlds, on the condition that she shared all her provisions with those who were sent to her, namely men who die from disease or old age" (Poetic Edda, 56). So here Hel is not a place but a goddess, and the abode of those who die straw deaths is in Niflheimr. However, this is thought to represent a late personification of Hel, which is clearly depicted as a "world" in other, earlier sources. That Hel in Snorri has "authority over nine worlds" can simply mean that she, as personification of death, has power over the inhabitants of the nine worlds (save those warriors who die in battle).
[12] Prose Edda, 46.
[13] Prose Edda, 43.
[14] Prose Edda, 43.
[15] Prose Edda, 47.
[16] Gríminsmál 31. See The Poetic Edda, trans. Carolyne Larrington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 56.
[17] Prose Edda, 42.
[18] Prose Edda, 42.
[19] Voluspa 2. Poetic Edda, 4.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 571: Dissident Right Philosophers Discuss Greg Johnson's The Trial of Socrates
Poetry for the Age of Strife: Arthur Powell's Skirmishes in the Atrium
Being There: Walter Kaufmann's Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre
Passage Prize II: Rewilding
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 568: Ask Me Anything with Millennial Woes
Standpoint Epistemology: Not Just for Philosophers Anymore
Thoughts on Decadence and the American Ethos
Remembering G. I. Gurdjieff
3 comments
rhondda says:
Thank you for this. As usual, it is quite thorough and fascinating. It is hard to imagine though, or perhaps it is to sink down to the purely instinctual. Sometimes, when I have been sort of lost in the woods or fighting a blizzard, that will to not give in takes over and everything looks and feels different.
00I've always liked the Vanir – more easy going than the Aesir yet they fought them to at least a tie during the War, actually putting an axe into the very door of Vallhala. In Robert E Howard's novels they have red hair and are similar to the Aesir and dwell right next to them. On one raid, Conan and a party of Aesir fought a party of Vanir to exctinction. Finally, only Conan and one of the Vanir remained. The Vanir said, "Tell me your name O Man, so I can tell my brothers in Vanaheim who the last of Hunwulf's reavers was to fall beneath the sword of Bragi". Conan replied, "Not in Vanaheim, but in Vallhala you shall say that you fell to Conan of Cimmeria." Conan dispatched the rogue and then was enchanted by the Frost Giant's Daughter.
At the end of the Hyperborean Age, a strong tribe of Vanir overthrew Egypt (Stygia) and set themselves up as rulers. It was said that Red Haired men were sacred to the God Set. This conflict between Nordics continued into the Middle Ages with Red hair being considered unlucky and now kick a ginger day.
Irish History is just like this, with Myth easing gradually into "real" history (myth). As Joe Friday should have said, do you want the facts or do you want the Truth? As the Greek philosopher (forget the name) said of Greek Mythology, "These are things that never were but always are".
00Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.


text:
After two decades of eating around New York City I finally got my fress on at Eisenberg's Sandwich Shop last week. Funny thing is my first job out of college was right around the corner. I'm not sure what kept me away back then, but these days the proximity of Ben's Best Deli to my home does a good job.
But back to Eisenberg's. Gotta love a joint whose slogan is "Raising New York's Cholesterol Since 1929." That cholesterol along with plenty of schmaltz and New York attitude has also managed preserve the old school deli tradition.
My pal Drew, clearly an old hand at dining in the joint's bustling lunch time atmosphere, humored me as I briefly considered the shrimp salad sandwich. "I always get the combo Reuben," Drew said. Between his cajoling and the waitress' claim that it was "the best thing in the house," my choice was made, and I am glad it was. And it wasn't just any plain vanilla Reuben either, but a combo of pastrami and corned beef. Well worth it for $13, too. The dynamic duo of deli meats, kraut, and cheese almost put me in an old school deli coma. (more…)