[cc-community] CC-like video release form
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Jan 17 17:53:05 EST 2008
On Thursday 17 January 2008 10:20:24 Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 January 2008 01:20:47 Fred Benenson wrote:
> >>>It's just like free software, really.
> The above was quoted out of context.
Not sure if you were responding to me or Fred, if me, I am not sure your quote
being out of context affects my posting.
> What I said was that it was just like free software in the fact that
> just because you have a legal right to use the software, you are not
> exempted from laws which affect HOW you use it. If you use it to commit
> a crime, you're still criminally prosecutable.
> I think the kind of moral panic being expressed in this thread is
> remarkably similar to the moral panic that people get when they realize
> that "just anybody" can edit Wikipedia, or that "just anybody" can reuse
> CC content, or that "just anybody" can revise and release free software.
I think if you check just a bit further down in my post, I kind of express the
same possible working out. You seem to see a very short time frame, I am not
so sure of that, I think it could take longer.
Basically, the public will become more aware of the issues surrounding Free
licensing and appreciate the risks people take in granting these releases to
be used with these licenses.
> It ignores the fact that there are social moderating factors that also
> result from the "just anybody" rule which tend to marginalize the
> abuses. Sure, people inject hostile code into free software packages,
> but then people remove it again, too. Sure, people deface Wikipedia, but
> people revert the damage, too.
> If your image enters the "free domain" it becomes an icon, just like any
> other celebrity or public figure image. Or that silly clipart guy with
> the pipe ("Bob") or George Bush (how many swastikas has he had
> photoshopped onto his head, I wonder?). Or even that girl in the Virgin
> ad (is there by now anyone on Earth who *doesn't* realize she has NO
> connection to Virgin and disapproved of the usage?).
> IOW, the impact of such images is mollified by the fact that viewers
> will quickly come to be aware that *anyone* can reuse that image
> (especially since the license needs to be published with it -- you could
> conceiveably make this true of the release as well), so the fact that
> some "bad guy" is using it too doesn't mean much.
Right. It may take a while for Uncle Jeb to cotton on to this though. In the
mean time, it is a risk. And more so for my kid than for me in my mind.
> I mean, I can pick out two things I agreed with Hitler on: we both liked
> Volkswagens and Tolkien. I really don't feel maligned by that chance
> Also, everything that applies in this case, must ALSO apply to a
> commercial stock photo, right?
I would think so. And to a BY-NC-ND photo possibly. Since using one to
illustrate and article is not a derivative according to the general
understanding around here. If so, then unless you could nail them on the NC
angle, which they may not be violating, even BY-NC-ND would not protect you
from this problem. Right?
> In any case, it'd be okay to place some limits on usage as long as they
> are clear-cut and do not require asking.
> For example, simply saying that the image "cannot be used to imply
> endorsement of ideas or products" is probably fine, because that's
> fairly straightforward and there's lots of precedent for it.
I think I might like to see such an idea included in BY-SA but would like to
hear arguments against it.
> You might even get away with some kind of "anti-disparagement" clause,
> but I think that would require much finer analysis to be sure that the
> term can be applied unambiguously (you don't want another vagary like
> "commercial use" to muddy the water).
I agree that I do not want to see more muddy water.
all the best,
More information about the cc-community