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

Matthew J. Agnello matt.agnello at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 15:17:39 EST 2008


>> 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 I understand it, this would work the same as any user of a public  
CC license. The copyright holder offers the work to the person under a  
BY license. This gives the user the legal right to distribute and  
remix while providing attribution.

Now, it might not be a good idea to use the BY license in this  
context. a point your example makes more clear, since it does allow  
the user to re-license under a less restrictive CC license and  
circumvent the original copyright holder's NC intentions. It's  
possible to work out these details in the contract that wraps the CC  
license.

All of this assumes it's possible to use a CC license in this fashion  
in the first place. The analogy I think of is software linking to free  
libraries to perform certain tasks. In the same way, a new license can  
include CC for functionality and provide more details in the new  
license, such as specifics for attribution or compensation for using  
the work. The text in the license related to this use are as follows:

- Sec 8e: "This License may not be modified without the mutual written  
agreement of the Licensor and You."

The modifications are contained in the contract that wraps the CC  
license.

- Sec8a: "Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the  
Work (as defined in Section 1 above) or a Collective Work (as defined  
in Section 1 above), the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to  
the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to  
You under this License."

Using a CC license the way I suggest may break down here, but I don't  
believe that it does if the user provides wording akin to the  
following: "This work was made available to me under a CC-BY license  
with the expressed permission of the copyright holder. All other uses  
must abide by a CC-BY-NC license."

Let me know if you see anything wrong with this. IANAL after all.

Best,
// Matt

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



On Jan 21, 2008, at 2:06 PM, drew Roberts wrote:

> 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!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080121/8a306564/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/20080121/8a306564/attachment.bin 


More information about the cc-community mailing list