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

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Jan 21 14:06:53 EST 2008


On Monday 21 January 2008 13:07:33 Matthew J. Agnello wrote:
> > And how do you determine which photos need such paperwork and which
> > don't?
>
> The way I do it (which is the company's method, and it's rather
> inaccurate) is whether or not a photo or video looks professionally
> done. If it does, I ask the person if it was taken by a professional
> photographer. They could lie to me at this point, but most people are
> honest and say yes, and I give them the bad news. I only offer my
> workplace as an example of where this situation arises in real life.

Thanks. An honest effort, but seat of the pants none the less. OK. Anyone else 
on list do things differently?
>
> Very few associates or managers understand the complexities associated
> with copyright in this context. They just follow the rules.
>
> > Sure. It is just that a fqamily might prefer to have the copyrights
> > assigned
> > to them rather than simply licensed to them.
>
> I'd do it if they asked me. But very, very few of my clients would
> understand the difference. They just want assurance that they can do
> whatever they want to do with it without hassle.
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > I would not think that is possible. If it is, I would think it would
> > lead to
> > major confusion and the possibility should be eliminated in future
> > licenses.
>
> As far as I know, the copyright holder can choose license terms for
> any one entity, and those terms could easily be those of a CC license.

Sure, but for instance, if the license text itself were to refer to the grants 
in the license applying to anyone, then you could not pull this off with an 
unchanged license text could you?

> The license text says, "BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED
> HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE."
> If the copyright holder only authorizes certain people to exercise
> those rights, the license can only ever apply to those people legally.

So, this is off the top of my head, but I think if I were CC, I would disallow 
the use of my trademarks and logos for cases where the license was not 
intended to apply to all parties and possibly maintain a seperately branded 
parallel license for those wanting to limit the applicability of the licenses 
to specific individuals.
>
> It's similar to someone licensing BY-NC publicly, getting a call from
> someone who wants to use the work in a commercial context, and
> licensing BY to that person only. 

So, the person with the BY license distributes copies of the photo along with 
the BY license as per the By license terms. How is the person getting the 
work with the BY license to know they are not allowed to use the work as per 
the license? I think one of us is missing something.

> As you said, for SA works this would 
> be either complex or impossible.
>
> Best,
> // Matt

all the best,

drew

>
> ----------
> Matt Agnello
> http://www.hungryfilmmaker.com
> < matt.agnello at gmail.com >
>
> On Jan 21, 2008, at 11:21 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Monday 21 January 2008 10:06, Matthew J. Agnello wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >
> > And how do you determine which photos need such paperwork and which
> > don't?
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Sure. It is just that a fqamily might prefer to have the copyrights
> > assigned
> > to them rather than simply licensed to them.
> >
> >>> 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.
> >
> > I would not think that is possible. If it is, I would think it would
> > lead to
> > major confusion and the possibility should be eliminated in future
> > licenses.
> > (You know, perhaps it is and I am thinking too much of the SA
> > license which I
> > prefer. So, if possibly, perhaps the fix would only be needed for SA
> > works. I
> > need to ponder this more deeply.)
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > And even in such a case, were they to authorize anyone, would that
> > undo the
> > contract?
> >
> >>> 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,
> >
> > I agree that being careful is the wise choice.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Even in the case of still photography, is the photographer always
> > the one who
> > presses the shutter? Or is the photographer sometimes the one who
> > arranges
> > and directs the composure of the shot and shouts now and has someone
> > else
> > press  the shutter?
> >
> >> "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
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > drew
> >
> >> ----------
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> !DSPAM:4794b55f230141804284693!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-community mailing list
> > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
> !DSPAM:4794dff4210211804284693!





More information about the cc-community mailing list