[cc-community] A Silly Question

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Oct 3 10:07:55 EDT 2011

On Friday 30 September 2011 12:39:11 Paul Houle wrote:
>   On 9/30/2011 10:12 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> I assume this is because the works on the wall are other people's
> >> physical property and that the BY-SA grant of a copyright license
> >> doesn't affect this
> >
> > Basically - yes. This leads into the rather more fascinating and murky
> > world of 'no photography' signs outside a gallery containing CC work.
> > It's not all as simple as the spraycan.
>        'SA' may or may not apply in a case where somebody takes a
> picture of a CC-BY-SA work.  If a copy of the work is faithful enough,
> it's not considered a "derived" work.

OK, but at that point it is a copy of the work and either 
fairuse/dealing/whatever, under the BY-SA license, or an infringing copy. Are 
there other options?

>        Practically there are issues bigger than that with many CC-BY-SA
> photos.  You find lots of pictures on Flickr with people in them,  cars
> with license plates,  etc.  I've never heard of it happening with CC
> images,  but the people pictured in a photograph have some rights,  and
> occasionally this can become a high stakes game if a person suffers a
> major personal loss -- for instance,  the image becomes evidence in a
> divorce case.

Concerning pictures with people in them. Isn't it that sometimes, a copyright 
license from the photographer is not enough and that a model release is also 

all the best,


More information about the cc-community mailing list