[cc-licenses] license options for models
connie at azlawyers.com
Thu Apr 12 14:04:05 EDT 2007
Greetings All. I have been reading the various posts for a while now.
Just wanted to chime in and say "yes a release is needed for animals."
Connie J. Mableson, Esq.
Dodge, Anderson, Mableson,
Steiner, Jones & Horowitz, Ltd.
3003 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Tel. (602) 277-3000
Fax. (602) 277-7478
connie at azlawyers.com
Unless otherwise indicated or obvious from the nature of this e-mail,
the information contained in this e-mail message is attorney-privileged
and confidential information intended for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If you, the reader of this message, are neither the
intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering
it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error or are not
sure whether it is privileged, please (a) immediately notify us by
telephone, and (b) immediately delete this message. Thank you.
From: cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of drew Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:29 AM
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] license options for models
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 09:50 pm, jonathon wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
> >> Then there seem to be location release forms, model release forms
> >> animals.
> > Aaurrgh, really!?
> If you make a movie, you probably need one release form for every
> (both animate, and inanimate) in the movie.
So, just as a for instance, let's say you see a BY photo with a person
Should you feel safe to use it per the BY license, or do you need to see
model release forms as well to feel safe?
If your answer is you shoud feel safe, should the CC licenses have some
distinction between advertising and endorsement?
If you answer is you need to see the release forms, should the license
some warning language as to other rights that can block you / get you in
> > Is there any legal reason to need such?
> Intellectual Property Rights law.
> > couldn't sue somebody for taking a photo of your premises. If so, is
> You can. The issue is whether or not the suit would be winnable.
> > at least a general "if it's public-access it's free to photograph"
> There are five major types of property:
> * Public Property;
> * Public Access Property;
> * Private Access Property;
> * Private Property;
> * Restricted Access Property;
> The only one in which a photograph can be taken, without the consent
> anybody is "public property"
> For all other types of property, the permission of the landlord,
> tenant is required.
Well, if I remember properly, I have read that if you shoot from public
property, you don't need release forms for at least as far down as
Property on your list when it comes to property. (It may need to be
that you shot from public property.)
Does anyone know of conflicting information?
> > One can imagine a lot of "chilling effects" and "free speech
> > if a company could use such a "premise right" to prevent news
> > being taken of their property.
> That has happened. This is a balance between "the public right to
> and "the right to privacy".
> >> In video there are also cameraman release forms as the person
> >> the camera is sometimes not the one who ends up with the copyright
> >> the video.
> > That's just going to be a standard "work-for-hire" form, though,
> Each position has its own set of release forms.
all the best,
(da idea man)
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses