CC BY-SA 4.0 for professional photos?
Why I grant this license only in exceptional cases
CC BY-SA 4.0 is, in my view, a good license. It is clear, internationally understandable, and often very sensible for projects that intentionally encourage open reuse. It permits copying, distribution, modification, and even commercial use of images, as long as the copyright holder is credited and derivative works are shared under the same conditions. But what about CC BY-SA 4.0 for professional photos? Creative Commons itself explicitly states that these licenses are intended as open licenses and are generally not easily revoked. (Creative Commons)
That’s precisely why I do not grant this license lightly.
Because CC BY-SA 4.0 is no minor additional license and certainly not a slightly more generous standard usage. Whoever receives this license gains a very broad range of usage rights. For true open-content projects, this can be exactly right. For classic photo assignments, however, it is often not.
Why I carefully examine open licenses
In photography, it’s rarely only about a file. It’s about people, contexts, clients, publication channels, and responsibility. That’s why I don’t just ask what copyright permits. I also check whether this openness makes sense content-wise and practically.
In cases with non-sensitive subjects, this can certainly work. But for many classic photo assignments, it fits less well.
The most important point: Photos with identifiable people
Once people are identifiable on a photo, it’s not only about my copyright as a photographer. It also concerns the rights of the depicted individuals. Section 22 of the German Copyright Act (KUG) permits third parties to distribute or publicly display images only with the consent of the depicted person. Section 23 of the KUG contains exceptions, but these exceptions do not grant a blanket license for open and globally widespread image sharing. (Gesetze im Internet)
Moreover: Creative Commons licenses primarily govern copyright usage rights. Personal rights, privacy, and similar rights are not automatically included. Creative Commons itself explicitly points this out. (Creative Commons)
Precisely here lies the real dilemma for me. An open license like CC BY-SA 4.0 can lead to images appearing in other contexts, being edited, recombined, or widely distributed by third parties. This is not license abuse — it is part of the license’s model. When depicting people, I therefore examine carefully.
Why this matters from the client’s perspective too
For clients, an open license often initially seems attractive. That’s understandable: content can be easily shared with press, partners, platforms, or third parties without requiring each individual use to be re-approved.
At the same time, control diminishes. Not every client wants images later to be freely edited, used in other contexts, or commercially reused by third parties. Especially for portraits, corporate photography, editorial contexts, events, or sensitive topics, this is often not the right solution.
Economically, CC BY-SA 4.0 is a different model
An open license is not simply “a bit more usage” economically. It fundamentally changes the model. In Germany, the industry has calculated professional photo usage differently for many years; the BVPA’s MFM image fees serve as a well-established planning tool. An open CC license fits only very limitedly into this logic, as it weakens exclusivity, reduces control over third-party usage, and significantly complicates future sublicensing. (bvpa.org)
Therefore, I treat an open license not like a standard usage. Someone who wants CC BY-SA 4.0 is not asking for a small additional right — they’re asking for a very broad public license.
When I consider CC BY-SA 4.0 more suitable
I do not exclude this license. But I assess it consciously and only on a case-by-case basis.
More plausible are cases such as:
Landscapes
Architecture
City views without identifiable people
Documentary or factual shots without sensitive person reference
Projects where open reuse is explicitly part of the concept
In such cases, CC BY-SA 4.0 can be an excellent solution — especially when reach and free reuse are explicitly desired.
My position
I do not reject CC BY-SA 4.0. But I do not grant this license routinely.
I see it as suitable where true openness is intended and the legal, content, and economic prerequisites are properly aligned. For most photographic work, I believe it is not a suitable standard solution.
Therefore, for me:
CC BY-SA 4.0 is possible, but only in exceptional cases. Not out of principle, but out of care, responsibility, and because a good license must always fit the actual usage.
Note
This text describes my practical assessment and does not replace individual legal advice in specific cases. Creative Commons itself points out that licenses do not replace legal advice, and that users should carefully review the prerequisites before using them. (Creative Commons)
Further references
Legal background and official sources:
Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 Legal Code (Creative Commons)
Creative Commons FAQ and license terms (Creative Commons)
§ 22 KUG (Gesetze im Internet)
§ 23 KUG (Gesetze im Internet)
BVPA / MFM image fees (bvpa.org)
License notice for the symbolic image: This AI-generated symbolic image is made available — to the extent any copyright rights exist or belong to me — under CC0 1.0. It may therefore be used, modified, and shared without attribution.
In other words: This image is especially free to circulate — not despite, but rather because of its demonstrably modest creative modesty.
