JWCLJust World Cultural License

A copyleft license to make the world a better place.

Preamble

The power of cultural works makes them, arguably, the most important cornerstone of humanity: they influence societies, define our shared experiences, and carry the potential to transform the world for the better—or for the worse.

The Just World Cultural License (JWCL) exists to empower the transformative power of art and ideas while safeguarding against their misuse. It is more than the permission slip typical cultural licenses serve as: it is a pact, one made between creators and users; between the present and the future. By embedding ethical principles into the very framework of how we create, consume, share, and build upon culture, this license seeks to foster a world where creative freedom and social good go hand in hand.

With this license, you are invited not just to create freely, but to create well—to share your vision while respecting the dignity of others, to innovate while honoring the earth we share, and to wield your influence in ways that uplift and empower. Together, we can ensure that creativity remains a force for justice, equity, and hope.

Human-Readable Summary of the JWCL 1.0

This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and holds no legal value. You should carefully review all terms and conditions of the actual license before deciding to use this license or any work licensed under it.

You are free to:

  1. Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
  2. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

  1. Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.

  2. Just Use Restrictions — You may not use the material to engage in, promote, or support activities such as:

    • Human rights violations
    • Economic exploitation
    • Environmental destruction
    • Conflict and militarism
    • Harmful products and services
    • Undermining democracy and human rights
    • Discrimination and hate speech
    • Suppression of workers’ rights
    • Obstructing environmental sustainability

    Conditional Use Allowances — If involvement in prohibited activities is unavoidable due to systemic constraints:

    • Your involvement must be indirect and necessary.
    • You must demonstrate ethical intent and mitigate potential harm.
    • You must maintain transparency and accountability.

  3. Reciprocal Sharing — If you share adapted material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

  4. Emerging Technologies — Additional terms apply when using the material with technologies like:

    • Generative AI — Permitted only if you follow license terms, ensure energy responsibility, and maintain transparency.
    • Blockchain and NFTs — Permitted only with environmentally friendly technologies (e.g., proof-of-stake).
    • Synthetic Media and Deepfakes — Prohibited if they could cause harm or deceive others.
    • Biometric Technologies — Restricted to uses that protect rights or promote social welfare, with full compliance.
    • Other Emerging Technologies — Must adhere to ethical principles and evaluation frameworks outlined in the license.

Notices:

  • Not a Software License — This license is not intended for software or source code. Any attempt to apply it to such is null and void.
  • Grace Period for Unintentional Violations — If you unintentionally violate the license, you have 30 days to correct it after becoming aware of the violation.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
  • No warranties are given — The material is provided as-is, and the licensor disclaims all warranties.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why make yet another content license?

I was inspired by the recent trend of ethical software licenses, and noticed a need for a similar license for cultural works. While a few of the software licenses attempted to do double-duty, it’s best practice to separate your code and cultural licenses from one another, as the needs are distinct.

If you have more broad questions or complaints about the idea of ethical licenses, please read this excellent article by Kyle E. Mitchell. It almost certainly contains a rebuttal to your specific complaint.

Doesn’t imposing restrictions on potential use make this a ‘non-free’ license?

This question gets to the heart of what we mean by “freedom.” While unrestricted action might seem like the purest form of freedom, meaningful freedom exists within a framework of mutual respect and responsibility. Just as workplace safety regulations enable rather than inhibit the freedoms of the employees, ethical guidelines enable rather than restrict creative freedom.

This license aims to protect both creator and user rights while preventing harm to individuals, communities, and the environment. Its requirements serve as guardrails that help ensure one person’s creative freedom doesn’t infringe on another’s fundamental rights or dignity.

As the (oft-misattributed) saying goes, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” The license applies this principle to cultural works, fostering an environment where creativity can flourish without enabling exploitation or harm—enabling more people to express more creative freedoms, not fewer.

TL;DR: Freedom without responsibility enables harm. The JWCL ensures creative freedom aligns with dignity and justice, fostering ethical innovation.

How do I license my own work under the JWCL?

Here’s a quick and easy license statement you can use as a starting point:

<p>This work is licensed under the <a href="https://licenseforajust.world/" target="_blank" rel="license noopener" style="display:inline-block;">JWCL 1.0<img style="height: 1em; margin-left: 0.5em;" src="https://licenseforajust.world/jwcl.svg" alt="JWCL 1.0"></a>.

Is there a variant of the JWCL that forbids commercial use?

No, nor will there be. Non-commercial restrictions almost never achieve the desired results, and the Reciprocal Sharing Requirement is a far better way to accomplish the goals behind a non-commercial restriction.

Is there a variant of the JWCL without the Reciprocal Sharing Requirement?

No. Unlike the last entry, though, this reason is purely practical: if the same license does not need to be applied downstream, people could use some portion of your work without any of the ethical restrictions this license applies. That’s not inherently bad, but it does defeat any reason to use the JWCL over a basic attributive license instead. This license is for when you want strong ethical protections that cannot be circumvented.

Why allow generative AI use at all? I have extremely strong opinions about the ethics of generative AI.

Believe me, I get it. Whether you see it as a helpful tool or a creative menace, one thing is certain: AI training on cultural works is already happening, and it’s not stopping anytime soon. The cat, now let out of its bag, seems disinclined to be shoved back into it and is willing to let you know with its claws.

Most existing open licenses (like the unaffiliated Creative Commons licenses) allow AI training by default simply because they don’t explicitly prohibit it. Banning AI outright might feel righteous, but it’s impractical: the tools will keep advancing, and bad actors will keep finding ways around restrictions—standing on the shore and shouting at the wave won’t stop it from crashing down and drowning us all. That’s why the JWCL takes a different approach: it forces ethical guardrails to steer it in the right direction.

What does the JWCL require?

Generative AI can only use JWCL-licensed works if it adheres to strict ethical conditions:

  • Attribution: Creators deserve recognition, and AI models aren’t a loophole.
  • Reciprocal Sharing: The strong copyleft provision.
  • Energy Responsibility: AI projects must commit to sustainability and transparency about their energy use.
  • Just Use Restrictions: AI use can’t promote harm, exploitation, or environmental destruction. The onus of responsibility is on the developers, full stop.

By imposing these requirements, the JWCL does something unique: it provides tools to make AI development accountable, ethical, and transparent. Rather than giving AI a blank check or pretending it doesn’t exist, it holds the technology to the same standards as human creators.

Why not just ban AI entirely?

A blanket ban is tempting and emotionally satisfying, but has three major problems:

  1. It’s pointless. AI developers who want to ignore your terms will do so regardless—bans only penalize those who want to play by the rules.
  2. It’s short-sighted. AI is just one piece of the emerging technology puzzle. What happens when the next ethically dubious tool comes along? The JWCL’s principles apply broadly through comprehensive clauses on Emerging Technologies, ensuring we’re prepared for future challenges and don’t put all our anger eggs in the LLM basket.
  3. It forfeits influence. By acknowledging reality and setting ethical conditions, the JWCL turns “when, not if” into an opportunity to shape a technology that’s here to stay for the better. Or less worse, at least.

TL;DR: AI is here to stay, and bans don’t stop bad actors. The JWCL imposes ethical guardrails—like transparency, sustainability, and accountability—that steer AI use in a direction that respects creators, the planet, and the broader social good. If you want to stop AI from running wild with your work and putting you out of a job (or worse, a planet), this is a far more effective way to do it.

For concerns about any other specific technologies (e.g., deepfakes, NFTs), see the Emerging Technologies section. Everything I said here still applies; just swap out the nouns as needed.

I strongly dislike this and need to share my thoughts with the person who made it, forthwith! (Alternatively, I have respectful comments and/or questions.)

This is a project by Kat Suricata, and you can send any words you so desire her way. Uniquely, you don’t even have to provide your name or email. If you have critiques or ideas for improving the JWCL, I genuinely want to hear them! Ethical progress thrives on dialogue.

My one and only request if you wish to debate the ideas behind this license or contest my execution thereof: please read this entire FAQ, along with the Kyle E. Mitchell article linked above, in full before messaging me.

If I apply the JWCL to my own works, does it restrict MY rights at all?

No. Licenses can only add rights, not take them away; anything you (or anyone else) could do with your work without the JWCL, you (and they) can do with it.

You’re also not restricted from making individual arrangements with others that go beyond the scope of the license. If you write a short story that you license under the JWCL, and some comic book company wants to adapt it into an All Rights Reserved graphic novel printed on paper made from endangered forest wood, you’re perfectly within your rights to sign a contract allowing them to do so. You monster.

Can I change this license if I don’t like [arbitrary provision]?

Sure. If you do, then please choose a new name for the license, don’t imply that I endorse your alterations, and change the non-license text (so, the parts on this page that aren’t the full license text or the deed).

Wouldn’t the Just Use Restrictions limit compatibility with most other copyleft licenses?

Yes—compatibility would require dropping ethical protections, which defeats the JWCL's purpose. You probably should not choose to license your work under the JWCL if your use case requires strong compatibility with works using other copyleft licenses.

Some of the Just Use Restrictions are quite vague.

Yes, they are—deliberately so. The nature of ethical guidelines requires flexibility and adaptability. Let’s break down why precision here would be both impractical and counterproductive:

1. Specificity invites loopholes.

The more narrowly you define a restriction, the easier it becomes for bad actors to exploit technicalities. For illustration, let’s take the restriction against “deforestation”:

  • What if we defined “deforestation” as cutting down 1,000 trees? Does destroying only 999 trees suddenly become acceptable?
  • Would we also need to define what a “forest” is? Where it begins and ends? How dense it must be? Frankly, does it matter?

Ethical intent matters far more than splitting hairs over specifics. Attempting to codify every detail would double the license’s length while adding loopholes to those who wish to bypass its spirit, making it less useful for you and more useful for bad actors.

2. Legal frameworks often deal with ambiguity.

Terms like “willfully,” “maliciously,” or “knowingly” are common in legal documents—and deliberately undefined. Why? Because intent and context are inherently abstract and must be interpreted by humans (e.g., judges, juries).

Ethical restrictions operate similarly. The goal isn’t to define every measurable outcome, but to provide clear moral boundaries that can adapt to different situations.

3. Flexibility allows for cultural and jurisdictional adaptation.

The JWCL is intentionally designed to work across diverse legal systems and social norms without needing edits for every jurisdiction. Take the restriction against discrimination: homophobia, for example, is always forbidden under the JWCL. What constitutes homophobia, however, will look quite different in the Netherlands (the first country to legalize same-sex marriage) versus Mauritania (where it remains punishable by death).

This adaptability ensures the license’s ethical intent holds firm while remaining sensitive to real-world complexities, jurisdictional differences, and varying cultural needs. All progress is incremental, and “better than things were yesterday” is a more achievable goal than “perfect immediately.” Perfect is the enemy of good, after all.

4. Precedent exists: ambiguity works.

When Creative Commons, the (unaffiliated) granddad of permissive cultural licenses, attempted to define what “NonCommercial” actually meant, they had an entire study done. After years of deliberation and community surveying, they ended up defining NonCommercial in… the exact same vague, interpretational, you’ll-know-it-when-you-see-it way they started with. It wasn’t a failure—it was recognition that ambiguity often works better in practice.

As they showed, some subjective terms need to rely on shared understanding rather than rigid legalese.

5. Enforceability remains strong.

For those worried about enforceability, rest assured: this license is based on the strong and battle-tested framework of pre-existing legal tools. The JWCL has been designed in such a way that the unique ethical requirements imposed are added-upon, not rewritten-into, this framework; in combination with the strong severability clause, this ensures that—even in the worst case scenario, imposed by the least sympathetic judge and/or legal jurisdiction—the protections afforded to the Licensor are only weakened to the level of a still-quite-strong copyleft license that discourages most exploitative behavior at the root.

TL;DR: Ethical guidelines work best when adaptable. Excessive precision weakens protections and invites exploitation, while flexibility ensures the JWCL remains enforceable, adaptable, and fair—no matter the context.

What happens if I accidentally violate the license terms while using a work licensed under the JWCL?

Hey, nobody’s perfect. The JWCL recognizes that good intentions sometimes pave roads we wouldn’t want to walk down, and it makes room for mistakes so long as you’re acting in good faith.

If you unintentionally violate the license, you have a 30-day grace period to fix it once you become aware of the issue before your rights expire. “Once you become aware” is important: you don’t need to sweat how long it’s been since you started using the work, only how long it’s been since it’s been brought to your attention. Once that happens, here’s what you need to do:

  1. Stop the violating activity as soon as you can. You are encouraged, but not required, to establish dialogue with the Licensor.
  2. Make it right—this might mean fixing missing attributions, ceasing unethical uses, or taking any other necessary steps to align with the license terms. This depends on what exactly you did.
  3. Mitigate harm from your misuse to the extent that you can.

If you correct the issue within the grace period, everything’s forgiven, and your rights under the license are fully restored. Think of it like bumping into someone and saying, “Oops, sorry!”—most people are chill.

However, this isn’t a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card:

  • You don’t get another grace period for the same violation. Once you’re made aware of an issue, make sure your fix is a good one.
  • Bad faith violations (e.g., intentional or malicious breaches) don’t qualify. In practice, this is almost always obvious.
  • If your actions caused significant harm that can’t reasonably be fixed, the grace period won’t apply. Think: using the work to spread hate speech or facilitate environmental destruction for profit. Again, usually pretty obvious.

TL;DR: if you mess up a little, but act quickly and responsibly to fix it, then no harm, no foul. The JWCL isn’t here to punish honest mistakes—that would be unethical behavior in and of itself, and I wouldn’t be able to handle the irony. At the same time, it’s not a pushover, either; it recognizes bad actors exist and would try to exploit it. This is a fine balance to walk, and the license’s solution, at least right now, is to impose harsh penalties for violation (permanently removing the protections it grants for all works by the same Licensor, whether or not those works were used in the violation) while offering quite generous terms to protect those who truly want to do good.

Your marvelous wit has convinced me to use the JWCL. What happens if I notice someone violating the license while using my licensed work, though?

If you spot someone taking the wrong kind of creative liberties with your work, take a deep breath: violations, while frustrating, are usually solvable without hurt feelings or societal harm.

  1. Start with dialogue. The JWCL assumes good faith until proven otherwise, and so should you. Many violations are unintentional—someone might be unaware of the terms, misinterpreted a clause, or forgot to attribute properly (it happens). Reaching out with a polite heads-up can often resolve the issue faster than you’d expect. Most people don’t want to be “that person.”
  2. Remind them of the license terms. A simple explanation of where the use fell short and how it can be fixed usually does the trick. Think of it as constructive critique: “Hey, I love that you’re using my work, but this license requires X and Y—here’s how we can make it right.”
  3. Escalate if necessary. If the violation persists or seems intentionally malicious, you’re well within your rights to escalate the matter, and you’ll still have traditional copyright tools at your disposal (such as takedown notices or legal claims). The JWCL gives you additional moral and ethical leverage to resolve issues without immediate legal escalation. The JWCL’s terms hold legal weight, and a repeated or bad-faith violation permanently terminates the violator’s rights to use any of your JWCL-licensed works. Consult legal professionals or relevant organizations to pursue enforcement. Remember that even with traditional All Rights Reserved copyright, bringing the legal system in to enforce your rights has to start with you.

TL;DR: Weigh the situation. Consult a legal professional. Enforcement doesn’t always have to be a scorched-earth scenario. If you’re dealing with an honest mistake, a conversation can mend fences while preserving the spirit of the license. Start by talking it out—most violations are fixable. If that fails, the JWCL has teeth: violators lose the right to use your work under the license and can’t claim ignorance as an excuse. Be ethical, but don’t let bad actors off the hook. As philosopher Karl Popper argued, unlimited tolerance allows intolerance to flourish.

Can this license be applied retroactively to existing works?

Of course! We all love a good comeback story. Important note, though: if the work you want to apply it to was previously licensed in any other way (short of All Rights Reserved), those licenses will still apply. This includes any individual arrangements you may have made with others as well as previous permissive/copyleft licenses. Most other licenses, once applied, are perpetual and transferable. That means they’ll remain in effect forever, even if you adopt the JWCL later. In practice, it won’t be a particularly strong application of the license.

This doesn’t make the act pointless! While previous licenses remain in effect, applying the JWCL communicates your commitment to ethical creativity and encourages users to honor the updated terms where feasible. Applying it to fresh works and anything you’ve previously had under full All Rights Reserved status are the only ways to guarantee the strong ethical protections the JWCL offers, however.

Are you a lawyer?

Heavens, no! Whatever did I do to provoke that horrid accusation?

I’ve spent an unreasonable amount of time thinking about this, though, and it’s built on solid, well-tested foundations. That said, please talk to a lawyer if you need specific legal advice. I know, I know—but we all must suffer for our work at times.