Week11-Creative Commons and Wikimedia Commons

Section 1: Summary

This week I went through the Creative Commons FAQ and the Wikimedia Commons FAQ, both of which are basically about how images and media can be shared legally online. Creative Commons has six different types of licenses, and they all require attribution — meaning you have to credit whoever made the original work. The licenses vary depending on whether you allow commercial use, adaptations, or require people to share their changes under the same license. Wikimedia Commons is a huge media repository connected to Wikipedia, and it only accepts files that are either in the public domain or under a "free" license — specifically ones that allow commercial use AND derivative works. So licenses like CC BY-NC (non-commercial only) are actually not accepted on Commons, which I didn't expect.

Section 2: Something New I Learned

I didn't realize that once you upload something to Wikimedia Commons under a free license, you basically can't take it back. The license is irrevocable, so even if you change your mind later, anyone who already downloaded your photo can keep using it. That felt a bit alarming honestly. I also didn't know that the Wikimedia Foundation only accepts CC BY and CC BY-SA among the CC licenses — so the "safer" licenses that restrict commercial use are all rejected. It makes sense from an open-access standpoint, but it still surprised me.

Section 3: Question for Discussion

My question is about the commercial use requirement. Wikimedia Commons won't accept any license that blocks commercial use, because they want content to be "truly free." But this basically means a company could take a photo I uploaded and use it in an ad without paying me anything — as long as they credit me. Is that really what "free culture" should mean? I feel like there's a difference between sharing knowledge freely and giving corporations free labor. I wonder if this policy actually discourages some people from contributing, and if so, whether Commons has ever considered changing it.

Comments

  1. HO RYUYEONGMay 15, 2026 at 10:46 PM

    Really interesting post — your Section 3 question is something I've been thinking about too.
    I think you're right that there's a tension there, but the policy might be more practical than idealistic. If Commons allowed NC licenses, every re-user would have to figure out whether their use counts as "commercial" — which is genuinely ambiguous. Does a blog with ads count? A university press? Keeping the rule simple probably reduces disputes, even if it feels unfair to individual contributors.
    One small thing I'd add: Commons and Creative Commons are actually separate organizations — Commons just happens to use CC licenses among others. I almost confused them myself while reading.
    — [호류영 / Ho Ryuyeong]

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Introduction to the blog

 This blog is a digital forum where students from Collective Intelligence in Practice: Understanding Wikipedia at the Hanyang University in Korea (2026) will discuss their weekly readings and activities. Each week you are expected to post a blog post on our blog and make a comment on another student's post. You can do so on one of the following three topics: a) You can blog about the readings for the next week. As you are expected to do the assigned readings FOR the lectures they are assigned to, you are expected to post your blog and comments BEFORE that lecture. An ideal commentary should be about half a page in length (~200 words), divided into three clearly labeled sections in which you: 1) summarize in your own words of materials you read; 2) mention any new, interesting, or unusual items learned; 3) identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle that is either problematic in some respect or could have been elaborated more. This question is likely to be...
Read more

WEEK2— WANG SIWEN

During this week, I made 15 edits on Wikipedia and also created a new personal sandbox. Most of my edits focused on adding new content and translating information between different language versions of articles. Through this process, I tried to make the content clearer and more accessible to readers from different language backgrounds. In addition, I created a new sandbox to practice editing and organize my ideas before publishing them on the main article pages. The sandbox allowed me to test formatting and translation structures more carefully, which helped me avoid mistakes in public articles. This week’s editing experience helped me understand that translation on Wikipedia is not simply changing words from one language to another. It also requires attention to accuracy, context, and neutrality so that the information remains reliable and consistent with Wikipedia’s standards. Overall, this week’s work helped me improve my editing and translation skills, and it also gave me a deeper ...
Read more

WEEK2 ——edits on Wikipedia

During this week, I made several edits on Wikipedia. My main work was adding citations to some sentences that lacked sources in order to improve the reliability of the article content. For example, I added citations from gaming media websites for descriptions of the influence of characters in the Resident Evil series, and also supplemented official sources for the feature introduction of the Origin platform. These edits can be seen in my Wikipedia contributions history. User contributions for Wjyy1212 - Wikipedia  While editing these pages, I learned about some content I hadn't noticed before. For instance, how digital gaming platforms like Origin operate—players no longer need physical discs after purchasing a game but can download it directly through their account. This reflects the development trend in the gaming industry from physical distribution to digital distribution.In addition, the influence of game characters should not be underestimated.  I also have questions I wo...
Read more