[cc-community] CC-like video release form

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Jan 18 08:53:51 EST 2008


On Thursday 17 January 2008 22:21:58 Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, both. Fred quoted it out of context and you responded. I was
> pointing out that this was a bit of a red herring (I didn't say what
> Fred evidently thought I said). I just wanted to keep us from going off
> on a tangent because of that.
>
> >>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
>
> Please note that from here on, you are muddying the difference between
> the *license* on the work (which is between AUTHOR and LICENSEE) and the
>        *release* on the likeness contained (which is between SUBJECT and
> LICENSEE). These are (and must be) two separate legal instruments.

If so, then I think it is due to non-clear communication and not non-clear 
understanding.

I know the license and the release are / would be seperate and that is as it 
should be in my mind at this point.

But surely any of these dangers we are batting around relating to releases and 
the Free licenses are largely there for even BY-NC-ND.

So the real danger with such releases is that they would be worded to travel 
with works that have pre-set licenses, whatever they may be. (Well, so long 
as they include the right to copy and distribute in some form.) And thus they 
put the person giving the release in the dangers discussed. If they are to 
not do that, they cannot follow the work and each new user of the work would 
need to seek a new release.
>
> The release cannot be included in the license, because it has to be
> granted by a different person.
>
> The proposal here is that CC also host standard *release forms* that
> could be used with the corresponding licenses (or perhaps be written
> cleverly so that they work with any of the licenses). Content creators
> could then get these releases signed by their subjects and publish them
> alongside their own license for the work, thus covering users on both
> the copyright and publicity issues, and making it possible for CC works
> containing people to be legally in the clear.

And I like that proposal very much. I may very well have an internal battle 
with myself before signing such a release, but I do think they should exist.

One selling point for signing such releases for the subjects of any multiple 
subject work would be that it is necessary for them to be able to take 
advantage of the license in the future should they ever want to. (Or at least 
it will save them from having to get releases later from the other subjects 
or their heirs or estates.
>
> Basically, it's a solution for the embarrassment from the Virgin brouhaha.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew



More information about the cc-community mailing list