[cc-community] CC-like video release form
Matthew J. Agnello
matt.agnello at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 09:09:23 EST 2008
I know CC wants to avoid acting as a law firm. Would providing these
releases cross that boundary?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2008, at 8:53 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>> the *license* on the work (which is between AUTHOR and LICENSEE)
>> and the
>> *release* on the likeness contained (which is between SUBJECT
>> 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-
> 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
>> could then get these releases signed by their subjects and publish
>> alongside their own license for the work, thus covering users on both
>> the copyright and publicity issues, and making it possible for CC
>> containing people to be legally in the clear.
> And I like that proposal very much. I may very well have an internal
> 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
> 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
> or their heirs or estates.
>> Basically, it's a solution for the embarrassment from the Virgin
> all the best,
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-community