I used to publish my original music on SoundCloud and Bandcamp under the CC BY 3.0 license (until 2021).
However, over time, my works were repeatedly reuploaded to YouTube as so-called "No Copyright Music" without my permission, and even distributed to platforms like Spotify under false names.
In 2022, I deleted both accounts.

I had also uploaded sheet music and MP3 files to IMSLP, so I requested deletion of my page for similar reasons.
However, the request was denied on the grounds that all submissions are reviewed and approved by administrators, making them a form of secondary use, and that Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable.

Instead, I requested the removal of my credit in accordance with the terms of the license (CC BY 4.0, 3a3).
In response, an administrator suggested changing the credit to a pseudonym instead, which I accepted.
This pseudonym was randomly generated using a password manager at the time.

I exchanged messages with several moderators and administrators, but I did not feel that they fully understood the principles of the Creative Commons license.
I suspect that IMSLP is using the "irrevocability" of the license as a justification to protect its site and avoid reducing the number of scores it hosts.

I also contacted the Creative Commons organization, along with a donation, requesting that this kind of case be reflected in their FAQ.
However, as of now, there appears to be no indication that the FAQ has been updated to include it.

When I discovered that one of my IMSLP scores had been reuploaded without permission to Musescore, I contacted their team to request its removal. I also cc'd an IMSLP administrator in the message, as he had previously been involved in the pseudonym change, and because I was aware that he had appeared in a YouTube video alongside a Musescore representative. I believed it was important that he be made aware of the misuse of materials originating from IMSLP.

I feel that many people use Creative Commons licenses without fully understanding the legal framework, relying instead on a general impression of "freely usable content."
This ambiguity has allowed so-called "copyleft trolls" to exploit the licenses in ways that deviate from their original purpose, turning them into business models.
I'm also concerned about the growing number of cases in which works released under Creative Commons are illegitimately registered with YouTube's Content ID system by parties other than the original creators.

I personally believe that the Creative Commons licenses should be revised to reflect current realities.
I sent a message to the Creative Commons organization along with a donation via their donation platform to express this concern.
However, based on what I've seen from their official blog and updates, there appears to be no indication that a revision is being considered.
While I do believe that a reassessment of the license system is necessary, I no longer feel hopeful about meaningful change.

April 2, 2025 Xbzoxmqp Uxsdajwo