[cc-community] CC Dragged Into Lawsuit
elliott bledsoe
elliott at creativecommons.org.au
Thu Sep 20 21:15:55 EDT 2007
On 21/09/2007, at 10:48 am, Nic Suzor wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 20:24 -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
>> I mean, say you take a street scene with lots of people in it. You
>> put it
>> under a BY license. Do you need to get clearances from hundreds of
>> people? O
>> nthe off chance someone wants to crop out a face and use the image
>> as an
>> endorsement?
>
> No, this is obviously not a workable solution. But I am wary of
> statements which could be seen to be misleading or deceptive. An
> argument could be raised (and I'm not saying that it would necessarily
> be correct) that the photographer, by saying "you can use this image
> commercially", is not being sufficiently clear that the permission
> only
> applies to copyright.
>
>> I would like to see better, honest, tutorials for photographers on
>> the
>> interaction of all of this as it relates to Free works at some point.
>
> I think this is critical. However, I also think that the licence deeds
> should clearly state that the licence applies only to copyright
> owned by
> the licensor, and does not affect (a) other copyright which may be
> embodied in the work, and (b) rights other than copyright. At the
> moment, we mention moral rights but nothing else.
i agree with nic on both points. obviously, ideally we would want
people who are cc licensing to have cleared all third-party rights to
a work under a cc licence (an issue addressed by jessica coates and i
when writing in filter magazine about the video slam project (http://
openchannel.org.au/blogs/videoslam/) run here in australia, pp14-16,
http://www.anat.org.au/pages/forumspubs/FilterArchive/
Filter65_WEB.pdf) but the licence doesn't warrant that the licensor
has done so. the reality is that often that hasn't happened.
on the second point, the cc licences shouldn't have to encompass
every possible periphery legal/moral/industry requirement outside of
copyright law that in implicated in a specific kind of (re)use of the
content. they are copyright licences not a do-anything-and-everything
licence.
but that said, i agree with nic that the commons deed should be more
explicit in stating that other these kinds of things are not
necessarily cleared. lets face it, very few people read the full
licence (which does state this stuff) so if people are relying on the
commons deed for information then it should be clearer.
and as a final point, virgin's lawyers should know better
_elliott (ccau)
>
> nic.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
More information about the cc-community
mailing list