Direct comparison
CC0 vs. CC BY for Preprint Deposit
Compare CC0 and CC BY licensing for preprint deposit on arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv: attribution, copyright, funder mandates, and reuse rights.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | CC0 (public domain dedication) | CC BY 4.0 |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Public-domain dedication -- not a Creative Commons license | Standard Creative Commons license |
| Author retains copyright | No -- waived to the fullest extent the law allows | Yes -- only reuse rights are granted, copyright stays with the author |
| Attribution legally required from reusers | No | Yes -- the one condition of the license |
| Commercial reuse without separate permission | Yes | Yes |
| Derivative / adapted works allowed | Yes, with no conditions on the result | Yes, reuser must still credit the original |
| Offered as an arXiv submission option | Yes -- one of 6 license choices at submission | Yes -- one of 6 choices; the most common pick for funder-compliant deposits |
| Offered at bioRxiv / medRxiv (openRxiv) | Yes -- including an option specifically flagged for US federal-employee authorship | Yes -- the most widely used option among openRxiv's Creative Commons choices |
| Typical funder preprint-mandate status | Sometimes accepted as an alternative, rarely the required option | Frequently the specifically required license for funder-mandated preprints |
| Text/data-mining and AI-training inclusion | Maximally permissive, generally included by mining pipelines | Also generally included; attribution obligation travels with reuse |
| Can it be loosened after posting? (openRxiv, since May 2026) | N/A -- already the least restrictive option available | Yes -- can be changed to a less restrictive license within 2 years, most recent version only |
| Best fit at deposit | Public-domain-eligible authorship (e.g. federal employees), maximal-reuse initiatives | General research-article preprints; funder-mandated open access |
Common questions
FAQ
Is preprint-deposit licensing the same as the license on the published journal article?+
No. They are chosen independently and can differ. The preprint's CC0 or CC BY choice governs reuse of that specific, not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint version. The published version's license is set later, often by the publisher or under the funder's open-access policy for the version of record. See CASRAI's comparison of CC BY vs. CC BY-NC for published-article reuse licensing.
Do I have to choose a license when I submit to arXiv?+
Yes. arXiv requires an active choice among six options (CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC BY-NC-SA, CC BY-NC-ND, the arXiv.org perpetual non-exclusive license, or CC0) before a submission can proceed -- there is no silent default.
Can I switch my preprint's license from CC BY to CC0, or the other way around, after posting?+
On openRxiv (bioRxiv/medRxiv), since a May 2026 update authors can request a license change via the Author Area, but only toward a less restrictive license, only within two years of the original posting, and only on the most recent version. Since CC0 is already the least restrictive option, a CC0 deposit has nothing further to loosen.
Does depositing under CC0 mean I lose credit for my preprint?+
No. CC0 removes the legal requirement that reusers attribute you when reusing the content, but it doesn't erase your authorship of the deposit itself -- the preprint record, its DOI, and its author list remain attached to the work. Good scholarly citation practice, and most journals' own norms, still call for citing the source even when a license doesn't legally require it.
Why would a funder require CC BY specifically instead of just accepting CC0?+
CC BY guarantees attribution travels with the work, which funders generally view as important for tracking research impact and crediting researchers, while still permitting the same commercial and derivative reuse as CC0. That is usually why CC0 is accepted as an alternative rather than set as the default requirement.
