I think it’s a little more complicated (but I’m not a lawyer).
CC is a license, not a waiver of rights. The copyright owner retains all rights, but grants a license for use under certain conditions. That the copyright holder retains all rights is actually a necessary condition for any legal enforcement of the license terms. So “all rights reserved” and a CC license are not necessarily incompatible. If they were incompatible, then “all rights reserved” would be incompatible with any form of licensed publication!
However, it isn’t clear that “all rights reserved” has a well defined legal meaning anymore. It used to be a formal requirement for copyright, but since the general adoption of the Berne convention, copyright is implicit without any formal requirements. So using the phrase “all rights reserved” at all demonstrates a cargo culting of copyright law.
As for changing their minds, CC licenses are irrevocable, but the copyright holder can always issue additional licenses–so, for example, a work could be distributed with a CC BY-NC-ND (noncommercial no derivatives) license but also sold for commercial or derivative works under a different license.
