I'm interested in putting some stuff up on DiviantArt, and while I like the license options, I would like to restrict them a bit. Namely I'd like to prevent copies or derivatives from appearing places that I haven't also published them. If I put something on DA, otherSite.com, and YAsite.com then those are the only three places I wish to allow derivative works or copies to be posted. At the same time, I wish to be able to post my work anywhere I wish. Furthermore, if by some strange chance I come into a situation where I can make money off of my work, I would like to do so, while disallowing derivative works to be sold for money (but still allowed for non-profit). Can I say something like ``CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 except for X-Y-Z provisions"?

Looking this up, I found that the GPL (GNU Public License) may be modified, but I'm not interested in GPL, rather a modified Creative Commons license.

edit: To be more explicit, I want to say the following

This is work may be lisenced as per the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 with the fallowing alterations:

(1) $myName, the original IP creator, may collect monetary compensation of his work. This does not imply that the original IP creator may monetize derivative works, nor that derivative works may be monetized by their creators.

(2) Distribution of copies and derivative works is restricted to those methods/places/whatever that the original has also used.

I'm thinking something like that, but not necessarily that.

  • "Can you tweak a license?" Yes. How do you think CC-BY, GPL, etc. were written? However, tweaking it in the specific manner you are mentioning, while still allowing others to use it in a straightforward way, seems non-trivial. Why not just use your own license (proprietary, with specific allowances)?
    – Brandin
    Dec 25, 2017 at 17:34
  • Well, the various version of CC and GPL were tweaked, yes, but they were also rewritten, in a sense. What I'm looking to do is say ``all that stuff, except where it conflicts with this other stuff I'm saying". As for why not use my own license? I'm not a lawer.
    – Nero gris
    Dec 25, 2017 at 17:36
  • "I'm not a lawyer" applies for tweaking as well as writing a new license. Adding in so many things to CC-BY, even if this is possible, it seems as though you may as well be writing a new license.
    – Brandin
    Dec 25, 2017 at 17:39
  • I'm not adding in a lot of things. Just two "I may monetize my work if I will it" and "derivative/copies of this work may not be shared on sites/mediums other than where the original work was distributed."
    – Nero gris
    Dec 25, 2017 at 17:42
  • 1
    Your planned changes go very much against what a CC licence is about. Why use anything CC-based for non-free works?
    – chirlu
    Dec 25, 2017 at 18:21

1 Answer 1


It depends on the license that you are using as your basis. The SE terms of service includes a modification of CC-BY along the lines of your "except that" example. There have a mechanism, called "CCPlus", that officially allows you to grand all of the rights of a license plus specified others (you can't retract a right, there is no "CCMinus"). CC explicitly grants permission to modify the license, as long as you don't call it a CC license (you can mention that it is based on a CC license). They state "CC does not assert copyright in the text of its licenses, so you are permitted to modify the text as long as you do not use the CC marks to describe it".

It is a separate question whether you should use the vague word "monetize" in a legal document. Your lawyer would advise you why that is so, and would advise you whether your re-writing was legally coherent. Since you are retracting rights you can't use CCPlus.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .