# Remixing CC Share-Alike Content, License Implied (likely not)

**URL:** https://connect.oeglobal.org/t/remixing-cc-share-alike-content-license-implied-likely-not/4432
**Category:** The Plaza
**Created:** [November 16, 2022, 8:06pm UTC](https://connect.oeglobal.org/t/remixing-cc-share-alike-content-license-implied-likely-not/4432 "2022-11-16T20:06:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![cogdog](https://connect.oeglobal.org/user_avatar/connect.oeglobal.org/cogdog/32/2_2.png) [@cogdog](https://connect.oeglobal.org/u/cogdog)
#### Post date: [November 16, 2022, 8:06pm UTC](https://connect.oeglobal.org/t/remixing-cc-share-alike-content-license-implied-likely-not/4432/1 "2022-11-16T20:06:12Z")

</div>

Everybody (well maybe not _everyone_) likes a good tussle with Creative Commons Licenses, here is my tossing something into the waters.

If I remix something that carries a Share-Alike license, then is it implied what I makefrom it carries that license? No, I do not think so, but I could not share it under any other license, right?

I was reminded of this when my good colleague @kenbauer posted a nice share (yes, in the fediverse!) of an old link of mine

> **[Ken Bauer Favel (@kenbauer@fosstodon.org)](https://fosstodon.org/@kenbauer/109353953873492521)**
>
> @ben@werd.social Another good resource which I often share with my students over the years is still out there written my friend and colleague @cogdog@mastodon.social which you can find at...

The link was something I had written working on a [2014 DML Research Hub project on Connected Courses](http://connectedcourses.net/) where participants contributed reflections from their own blogs syndicated into the project site (Ken still uses this approach well).

[Blogging Like a Connected Courses Champion](http://connectedcourses.net/blogging-like-a-champion/) was meant to be a few (non-technical) suggestions to guide our blogging participants. As I like to do, I include in my posts some images to work as metaphors.

For this one, I had found a perfect on in flickr, CC licensed, of a young girl leaping in front of a stop sign. I had modified the STOP sign to read BLOG, that was my remix (I still enjoy this image):

 ![Connected Courses Post on Blogging Like a Champion](https://connect.oeglobal.org/uploads/default/original/2X/7/70e12fbf3848b0d3ddc455ff5599fce0874fc903.jpeg)

I would now give myself maybe a C- or worse on my simple attribution:

> modified from creative commons licensed (BY-NC-SA) flickr photo by Lotus Carroll

For TASL (Title, Author, Source, License), I list them, but the only link to the image is from the image ([and not even available any more](http://flickr.com/photos/thelotuscarroll/14612939916)). I also did not write who did the remix/modification, nor did I reiterate that what I created is licensed the same.

Now to me, any bit of attribution is better than none, but we can always do better.

I know now how I could do it better, but what about if I ask you, the people reading this post, how can it be done better? And [clichés on assumptions aside](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1339:_When_You_Assume), I cannot really say this implies my remixed version carries the same license, right?

C’mon, reply and play the CC license attribution debate game! _(Alan will try anything to elicit replies here)_

---

_[View the full topic](https://connect.oeglobal.org/t/remixing-cc-share-alike-content-license-implied-likely-not/4432)._