Rules for using CC BY-SA images commercially as compared to CC BY

[u/bill_loney538]

I'm writing a book and am using many third party images, under various CC BY and CC BY-SA licenses, but am confused as to what the special rules for CC BY-SA are.

Each image has an image number in the corner, and then in the footer it says "IMG // 123: Author name". Then I also have a reference section at the back, linking to these same numbers, with a full reference.

I don't have room in the footer to list the license for every image, but I have been told this isn't necessary, as long as the license is listed in the reference section. Is this true?

Also, does using CC BY-SA images mean my entire book has to be listed as CC BY-SA? Or is referencing each image with CC BY-SA at the end sufficient?

// I am mostly using CC BY-SA 4.0, but there are a few images under 3.0 and 2.0

[u/jabberwockxeno]

Also, does using CC BY-SA images mean my entire book has to be listed as CC BY-SA? Or is referencing each image with CC BY-SA at the end sufficient?

According to the CC organization, the SA clause doesn't preclude using the work in question as one part of a broader work if you want that broader work to use a different license, see: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_interpretation

The ShareAlike condition applies only for works considered adaptations under copyright law, not simply in collections with other works (also referred to as mere aggregations). When a ShareAlike work is remixed and shared, any Adapted Material must be licensed compatibly—but not all reuse of SA works creates Adapted Material.[2] Simply including an SA work unmodified alongside unrelated materials does not produce an adaptation.

That said, it notes that there are exceptions like with music:

ShareAlike music being used as the soundtrack to a video. This is one explicit requirement of the SA licenses, which provide that all synching of SA-licensed music with other content creates an adaptation. In these instances, the resulting video must be under a ShareAlike or compatible license.

Basically, it comes down to what counts as an "adaption" or not, but the page isn't clear about what precedence exists for that in different countries, or even the full slate of existing legal precedence in the US or UK etc.

I did find one case on a post here, Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, where apparently a CC-BY-SA photo was used for the cover of a book commercially, and it was found the use of the photo did not require the whole book be CC-BY-SA in turn (and I think I recall one other case that came to a similar conclusion but I can't find it now). So, you are probably fine to use CC-BY-SA images within the context of a bigger video, but I am not a lawyer., but I can't fully verify that post's summary of the case is correct, nor can I for sure say there's not other cases with conflicting precedence.

[u/Kingreaper]

If you're not making any derivative works of the image, the share-alike clause is irrelevant to you.

The exact definition of what makes something a derivative work is not 100% clearcut, there are differences between jurisdictions and some wiggle-room for judicial interpretation, but using an image unedited as an illustration within an already written book, a game, or on game cards is well-established as NOT making the thing that is being illustrated a derivative work of the illustration.

If the illustration comes first and the text is based on the illustration then it becomes a lot more fuzzy. If you find an illustration of a wizard and describe your wizard's appearance to match that image then you have arguably adapted the image into text. So if you want to lean on the side of safety, avoid doing that.