Here's an example of how limitations through CC licences can change what you do with a paper.
I'm looking at an image. At first I thought to use it in a blog post about organic batteries. I thought I could do that because the paper is open access, but the licence of the paper is BY-NC-ND. Taking an image from the paper and blogging about it is pretty much making a D of it. The ND forbids derivatives, even if the point of the derivative is to say "Hey go look at this paper!" The page for the image itself has no CC licence information, so it looks like the copyright in the footer applies.
I can see why there's the NC clause. This has its own problems, like making it unusable for things like Wikipedia, but I can see sense in it. But ND seems an odd clause for scientific papers. Surely (properly-credited) derivative works are a good thing for scientists? I can see there's a reason for ND in artistic protection, but science papers generally aren't works of art. Are there good reasons for Nature to have the ND clause?
I've trimmed the image thumbnail and description from the link because they would be derivative from original paper.
Google+: View post on Google+