I recently submitted an under-review paper to arxiv. I mistakenly chose CC BY 4.0 as the license. I suddenly found out that I've done that mistake. Can anyone publish my paper in a journal or conference? Is there any way for changing the license? Would you please guide me on how bad is the situation for me? What are the consequences? I have worked hard on this paper and it is important to me.

  • 1
    Let the answers of Brian and Anyon guide you. Being under review is pretty much a safeguard just because of timing. But take more care in future. You can always apply a more permissive license in the future if you like, so be a bit conservative.
    – Buffy
    Commented Mar 26, 2021 at 22:05
  • 10
    The CC BY 4.0 license exists for any copy which has already been distributed and applies to any future copies made from a copy already licensed. However, you could choose to stop distributing the original under that license. Anyone who already had a copy would still be able to distribute using that license and people getting a copy from those who can trace their possession to the original distribution would have a CC BY 4.0 licensed copy (and could further distribute), but people getting a new copy from you could be under a different license, if you choose to use a different license.
    – Makyen
    Commented Mar 27, 2021 at 6:19
  • 9
    What most answers fail to address is the "remix" aspect of the CC BY 4.0 license. What does "remix" mean in the context of an academic paper? Is someone allowed to extend the paper (assuming LaTeX sources are available), e.g., by adding a new section, and add himself as an author? I feel that this is a relevant aspect that should be addressed as a part of an answer to this question.
    – user137750
    Commented Mar 27, 2021 at 9:18
  • 4
    How did you choose the license “mistakenly”? Which license did you intend to choose, and why? Commented Mar 27, 2021 at 12:36
  • 3
    @Makyen "the intent is clear that the license only applies to copies made from content which validly has that license applied". That's correct, but means the opposite of what you think it means. If a license validly applies to some particular elements of creative expression that are protected by copyright, then every copy of those elements is a copy made from content which validly has that license applied. The license applies to the content, not the copy. It pretty much has to be this way because only the copyright holder can provide the license. Commented Mar 29, 2021 at 0:37

7 Answers 7


Can anyone publish my paper in a journal or conference?

They'd need to attribute the paper to you. Most journals will only accept papers written by the person who is submitting the paper.

Can a journal publish my paper on its own?

Yes. You already gave permission to do so. A legitimate journal probably won't do so. Possibly a predatory journal might do so if they wanted to pad their journal.

Is there any way for changing the license?

Effectively, the answer is no. The CC BY 4.0 license is irrevocable. If you release the paper under a different license, people can just take the copy they received under CC BY 4.0 and distribute that.

What are the consequences?

Anyone can take your paper and publish it wherever they want, even if you don't provide individual permission. However, they will have to cite you. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ provides an overview of these permissions.

How bad is the situation for me?

It's not that bad for you. CC BY 4.0 still requires attribution. Unless you're trying to make money selling your paper, there's usually no reason to care if people freely distribute your paper. Of course, many journals will refuse to publish a CC BY 4.0 paper (e.g., because they sell access to the paper or because they want an exclusive license).

Edit to add more details in reply to comments

Is it legal for someone to publish my paper without asking for explicit permission?

Yes. Anyone is free to "redistribute the material in any medium or format." Mind you, they still have to attribute the work to you.

Can they do so without contacting me?


Someone I dislike published my work. Do I have any recourse?

Not usually. Many licenses, including CC-BY 4.0 are specifically designed to prevent authors from having recourse, except if the license terms were violated.

Why would someone design a license that blocks authors from exercising control over how their work is used?

By disclaiming control over your work, licensees are protected from rogue licensors who later retract permission. Similarly, licensees can spread the work without working with the licensee. Licensors wishing to spread their work as widely as possible may wish to avoid placing any barriers on distribution of their work.

  • This answer led to an interesting conversation; let us continue in chat.
    – cag51
    Commented Mar 27, 2021 at 17:53
  • For the "Is there any way for changing the license?," the answer here only applies with respect to existing copies. You are certainly within your rights to switch to a different license for any further copies that you distribute. That won't affect the rights of people already in possession of the paper (nor of the people they directly or indirectly distribute to,) but it will affect the rights of anyone to whom you distribute in the future (and those to whom they distribute.)
    – reirab
    Commented Mar 29, 2021 at 16:20
  • @reirab: That has already been heavily discussed both in comments on the original question and in chat.
    – Brian
    Commented Mar 29, 2021 at 16:34

The license mainly affects legal rights, not academic ethics. Codes and conventions of academic ethics provide (generally) clear guidelines on who can submit papers for publication, what authorship attribution is required, and so on. Reputable journals have their own submission policies that confirm this; a typical policy might say that the submission must be made with consent of all authors. A CC licence may give me the right to “remix” your paper and distribute a derivative work with (or even without) attribution — but if I want to submit it to that journal, you are still an author, and so the policy still requires your credit and consent. All this would still hold even if you’d put your paper entirely in the public domain.

So within reputable academia, no, the license doesn’t allow anyone else to publish your paper, or do anything out of the ordinary.

The main effects are (as noted in other answers):

  • It reduces your legal protections against some kinds of plagiarism. Anyone publishing your paper as their own is still committing severe academic misconduct (so if they’re at a reputable institution, or it’s a reputable journal, you can still report them for it), but it may not be the same legal violation it usually would be.

  • Some journals may not be willing to publish your paper, for several reasons: they expect to get certain exclusive rights (e.g. commercial distribution); and they need the legal rights to enforce these.

  • 1
    CC BY 4.0 does NOT give you the right to distribute a derivative work without attribution. Nor does it give you the right to share the original work without attribution.
    – Brian
    Commented Mar 29, 2021 at 16:36
  • @Brian: I don’t mean to suggest it does! My point is that even if the paper had been released under more permissive licences than CC-BY, it’s still subject to normal academic ethics and policies.
    – PLL
    Commented Mar 29, 2021 at 19:39

Anybody attempting to publish your paper under their name would be committing plagiarism and breaking the license agreement. Anybody submitting your paper under your name would be committing some sort of misconduct, and possibly worse if they sign paperwork. No serious journal or conference would want to deal with either scenario, so I wouldn't worry about what third-parties might do. More realistically, a publisher might (or might not) frown on this license choice, see this question as well as this one. The license (on that version of the preprint!) is irrevocable, but with open access or a publisher that's OK with that license it shouldn't matter.

  • 5
    I don't think it's academic misconduct to submit OP's paper under OP's name, so long as the submitter doesn't pretend to be OP. Mind you, most journals only accept papers submitted by their authors.
    – Brian
    Commented Mar 26, 2021 at 21:48
  • @Anyon So you think I shouldn't be worried? Is there any way to change it?
    – user137927
    Commented Mar 26, 2021 at 21:50
  • 1
    @user137927 As far as I'm aware, there is no way to change the license. It is supposed to be irrevocable. Having picked this license shouldn't stop you from publishing - but may, at worst, limit the possible venues. No reasonable venue would publish your work without the involvement of (at least one of the) authors, so I wouldn't be particularly worried. Note that some preprint sites (e.g. Preprints.org) post all preprints under a CC-BY license, and I've yet to hear about that causing problems related to the license (besides potentially limiting the venues willing to publish the work).
    – Anyon
    Commented Mar 26, 2021 at 22:03
  • 3
    @user137927 I wouldn't recommend it, since it may look bad to your peers. Assuming your preprint has posted already, withdrawing wouldn't do much to alleviate your concerns anyway, since previous versions can still be retrieved. Besides, I suspect arXiv might consider license choice to be an inappropriate reason for withdrawal.
    – Anyon
    Commented Mar 26, 2021 at 22:17
  • 3
    Good answer, but the advice in the second link is seriously outdated. Journals have come a long way since 2013 regarding the acceptance of preprints. This shouldn't be an issue for most reputable journals nowadays. Commented Mar 27, 2021 at 12:34

Can anyone publish my paper in a journal or conference?

As mentioned in the other answers, they could, with attribution. But they probably will not because it is not profitable.

Is there any way for changing the license?

As mentioned in the other answers, no, the license cannot be revoked.

Would you please guide me on how bad is the situation for me?

This is a good situation. You have made it easy for people to access and cite your paper.

What are the consequences?

Most likely the consequences will be exactly the same as if you had selected any of the other ArXiv licenses; a few people will download and read your work on ArXiv. Probably nobody will use the extra rights granted by the license you selected.


I will not repeat the points raised in other answers (I especially find Brian's answer excellent), though I will summarize: you cannot revoke an irrevocable licence; but no legitimate journal would let anyone get away with plagiarizing your article.

However, there are at least two important points that were sometimes mentioned (e.g., by PLL), but deserve more focus.

First, some journals require an exclusive copyright assignment in order to publish your work with them. So, check the copyright assignment policy of the journal that is currently reviewing your work. (Just ask the editor in chief or editorial assistant for it.) If the journal requires exclusive copyright assignment, then this is incompatible with CC-BY. You would not be able to sign such a copyright assignment statement. That said, there are ways to explain the situation to the journal and get a custom copyright assignment statement that allows non-exclusive publishing, but that would be a little bit complicated.

Second, although no legitimate journal would let someone get away with plagiarizing your work, there are lots of illegitimate journals that might publish your work right away without asking you further (which is perfectly legal under CC-BY). Hopefully, that does not happen, but before eventual publication of your work, you should do a search on Google Scholar just to make sure. (One nice thing is that, as far as I know, Google Scholar does not index predatory journals, so even if someone does this, it should be invisible to the Web and so should not affect you negatively.)


Get in Touch with Your University's Legal Counsel

All of the other answers explain what would happen as a consequence of licensing a paper under a Creative Commons license, which is fair and certainly worth knowing. To me, though, this is a legal question, not an academic question. The question is, can you actually offer a work under a license unintentionally? Since this is work you intend to publish — and especially if it's grant-funded work, which may come with its own set of requirements — you (and your advisor if you're a grad student) should probably get in contact with your university's legal counsel.


Up front: I am not a lawyer. This is just my understanding from a few years publishing in academia, and many more in the US software industry dealing with licenses.

In the US, at least, it's not exactly clear whether licenses probably considered contracts. I found an article from LWN about four other (software) licenses that were researched by an expert. Their conclusion was

In short, under US law, with the possible exception of the Fair License, all the licenses under consideration are likely to be regarded as contracts.


In those cases, it was the fact that the licenses contained restrictions, requirements, and disclaimers that moved them beyond “bare licenses” into contracts. All Creative Commons licenses definitely contain restrictions and requirements (e.g., the requirement for attribution). The CC-BY-4.0 license itself contains language alluding to this possibility.

To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions.


This is important, because in the US it's difficult to “accidentally” enter into a contract. It requires a meeting of the minds — the intention and understanding of both parties. Only a legal expert can tell you whether this requirement was satisfied in this case.

Other Parties

Additionally, as I alluded to above, you may not even have the right to license your work under a Creative Commons license. If your work is funded by a grant, you may have already assigned some rights to another party. If you have co-authors, they have rights too, as might your university (who may be your employer depending on your situation).

  • 1
    Given that open access mandates are becoming increasingly common, I think it's very unlikely that a funding agency would restrict its grantees from publishing under the most common license for open access publications.
    – Anyon
    Commented Mar 27, 2021 at 16:47
  • 1
    @Anyon I tried my best to be vague, because we don't know what requirements the OP may be under (if any). My point was more that these are all potential complications that must be considered, and which may affect the outcome. Commented Mar 27, 2021 at 16:54

It's not an answer to your question but an idea:

After review, you will likely make some corrections to your paper and publish version 2. Publish version 2 under a different license.

In that way, anyone who wants to make use of your paper will probably prefer to use the revised version 2 which will be licensed less permissively.

You must log in to answer this question.

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