[cc-community] Re: morguefile

Rob Myers robmyers at mac.com
Sat Jan 1 19:57:16 EST 2005


On 1 Jan 2005, at 16:11, Greg London wrote:

> Rob Myers said:
>> On 31 Dec 2004, at 14:38, Greg London wrote:
>>> Rob Myers said:
>> It's important to note that the image is licensed via the website
>> *only* to individuals or organisations who directly download the work.
>> The license doesn't follow the image like a CC licenses would.
>
> CC-Sampling would prohibit redistribution of the original work.
> That's about as close as you can get to the no-redistribution agreement
> in a CC license.

Whups. I chunked that with Sampling plus. Yes, that is close to the 
no-redistribution agreement.

If Sampling was applied to the site as a collective work, that would be 
very close to the original license, as individual images would be the 
individual pieces of the site that users would "sample".

That does still leave advertising, and uses of the work that are not 
transformative.

>> Apart from the no-redistribution aspect of the license, BSD-revised
>> would be a good fit, which would best be matched by CC-BY(attribution
>> waived).
>
> Apart from? How do you waive "no redistribution" so lightly?

I don't, I'm just working through the possibilities.

> The whole point is to allow photographers control of their originals.
> A photographer could license their photo CC-Sampling and post their 
> photo.
> Later, because of a commercial deal with some publisher, they
> could take down the original.
> If the photo is CC-Sampling and they
> take down the original photo, the original photo should not exist
> anywhere on the web, and the photographer could sell exclusive rights
> to the original photograph to someone.
>
> Since no one can distribute the original, the photographer has
> complete control over its availability.

There is no mechanism for voluntary takedown of images (only for 
IP/rights infractions), and the site seems to claim dual ownership on 
images (although this possibly just refers to the site design, it can 
be read that way). Going all Debian for a moment, what grounds for 
complaint would contributors have if a future Evil owner of the site 
refused to take down images that they want to sell?

>> doesn't allow use of the entire image,
>
> I think that's implied in the original agreement.
> If redistribution of the original photo is allowed
> because it is part of a larger derived work,
> then the original photo is still redistributed,
> and that breaks the original agreement.

I still believe that this is unlikely as it would go against many 
common uses of stock photography as drop-in illustrations.

>> and requires attribution.
>
> The aggreement says "photographers maintain credit".
> I think attribution would most closely honor the idea of "credit".

I agree. However the terms also state:

"These images may be used for any other commercial or personal use. 
Credit for this use is appreciated but is not necessary. "

>> And a CC-SM-AD licence's terms would be
>> self-contradictory:  you could not use the images as part of an
>> advertisement, as unless it was a text-free "teaser" campaign you 
>> would
>> be making a derivative work of the entire image that is not highly
>> transformative.
>
> I'll leave it to the ad people to figure out a way to use
> CC-SM-AD photos in a way that is transformative enough to
> satisfy the requirements of the license. They're pretty
> smart when the concentrate.

:-)

There should be license cracking competitions like the server cracking 
competitions you get online. Give a prize to anyone who can make 
creative work using any legal "exploits" that they can find in the 
current CC licenses. :-)

> The most important thing, though, is to find a license
> that keeps most of morguefile's contributers happy by
> matching the original agreement as closely as possible to
> a CC license.

Absolutely.

> And I think CC-SM-AD does that.

OK. If applied to the site rather than to individual images I agree.

SM seems to be NR-PO-NA where NR = No Redistribution, PO = re-use Part 
Only, NA = No Advertising...

> If they want to allow whole photos to be used as part of
> a larger derivative work, then maybe there should be a
> CC-Collage license specifically for photos and artwork.
> It would allow an entire photo to be used in a derived
> work if that new work sufficiently added an artistic
> transformation to the final work. And CC-Collage could
> allow advertising, and then they'd have a perfect fit.

I think this is a great idea that would be very popular with artists, 
many of whom have the same kind of ethos regarding use of work as 
sampling musicians do. Combining CC-Collage and CC-Sampling to have a 
general CC-Mashup license would allow the moving of work across mediums 
that has been a hallmark of creative reuse of (for example) books and 
music licensed CC.
Personally I'd rather see people go CC-BY-SA rather than Yet Another 
License, but in terms of providing licenses that meet popular demand, 
CC-Collage or CC-Mashup could be another win for CC.

Incidentally, here's an example of someone who's happy having their 
work used except for advertising:

http://creativecommons.org/getcontent/features/peoplelikeus

- Rob.

--
http://www.robmyers.org/ - A decade of art under a Creative Commons 
license.
http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/ - Art, aesthetics & free culture weblog.




More information about the cc-community mailing list