[cc-community] CC: Fun for the whole family

Matthew J. Agnello matt.agnello at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 10:06:38 EST 2008


> So, one solution is to seek out photographers who will even go as  
> far as
> assigning copyrights to the individuals in the photots.

This is certainly a possibility. It still requires a piece of paper  
when presented to third parties. Even if a person came to me at work  
and swore the photographer signed his or her rights over or that the  
photographer swore not to assert copyright over the photo, I couldn't  
copy the photo until I had the paperwork backing that up.

Now, the reason I'd choose a CC license in this case would be simply  
because the deed is easier to understand -- I think that is its  
greatest strength in these cases.

> Would the family want the photots under a CC license, or would they  
> prefer the
> copyrights be assigned to them? A CC license would give rights to  
> third
> parties which the family might not wish to do.

It's possible to have a license a work to only an individual (or in  
this case, a family) under CC without having it apply to anyone else.  
The easiest way to do this is to preface it in a contract that says,  
"This license applies exclusively to the Smith family and those acting  
on its authorized behalf. Signed, Me." As far as I know, this has not  
been given any weight in court, but I know third parties such as my  
workplace would accept it.

> One question that interests me is that the photographer generally  
> gets the
> copyright on the photograph he shoots, but does the cameraman get the
> copyright on the footage he shoots?

Hard question. I think it depends very much on the specifics. I know  
that generally speaking third parties treat professional video the  
same way they treat professional photography: they assume ownership  
and require a release to copy it. Because of the gray area, I am very  
careful with what I do with the footage if it isn't specifically for  
the project, and I'll always ask beforehand about using the footage in  
a promotion. A court would probably need to examine the specifics to  
decide if the creative work were a "work for hire" or not. "Work for  
hire" means you're acting on the copyright holder's behalf and do NOT  
own the work. However, this usually means you're employed full time by  
the employer, and this is not the case for a wedding video.

Either way, the purpose of the paperwork is to make third parties feel  
better. The easiest paperwork to understand that I know if is a CC  
deed with the legal code as an option (and most probably would not ask  
for it). And to make it apply to only the one family, all you have to  
do is say so.

Best,
// Matt


----------
Matt Agnello
http://www.hungryfilmmaker.com
< matt.agnello at gmail.com >



On Jan 21, 2008, at 8:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote:

> Would the family want the photots under a CC license, or would they  
> prefer the
> copyrights be assigned to them? A CC license would give rights to  
> third
> parties which the family might not wish to do.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080121/23e1579f/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080121/23e1579f/attachment.bin 


More information about the cc-community mailing list