[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?

// Matt

--
Matt Agnello
http://www.hungryfilmmaker.com/

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  
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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