Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

drew Roberts wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 April 2007 05:14 pm, Ryan L Kerns wrote:
>>The current option for photographers and models is the model release form.
>
> So far, I have avoided releasing any of my stuff with people in it due to 
> such 
> uncertainties but would like to eventually clear these issues up in my mind 
> so that I can proceed in more areas.

ISTM those are generally going to be adequate.

There's going to be some uses of a photograph of a person that are going
to be subject to restrictions no matter what, though.  E.g. if you take
a photo of 13-yr-old girl and gimp graft it onto a nude pornographic
image, you are going to be liable for that -- possibly even criminally
prosecutable (I think it depends on the jurisdiction).

Likewise, if you take an otherwise public domain photo of a NASA
astronaut and place it in an advertisement saying (or even implying)
that, 'Astronaut Jane Doe (or NASA) endorses our product', you are in
trouble.

But I think those restrictions are reasonable and should not be
considered "non-free" (for those of us who care about free-licensing).

I have an example, however, of a photograph I want to use which shows a
girl operating an engine lathe (I want to show what she's doing, but the
person doing it isn't really relevant to my work -- except maybe that it
is a girl, as I would prefer to avoid certain stereotypes). The photo is
licensed "CC-By" and all participants in the program that generated the
photo (FIRST) have to sign a model release for such photos (IIRC, it's
"for promoting the FIRST program", but in fact, my using and referencing
FIRST materials *is* promotion).

I plan to actually make a query before going to publication with it (for
one thing, it'd be fine with me to credit the girl if she wants to be
identified -- it's not huge fame, but why not?), but I think the terms
of the release include the CC-By release of the photos, and subsequent
uses of them.

> Then there seem to be location release forms, model release forms for 
> animals. 

Aaurrgh, really!?

Is there any legal reason to need such? I was pretty sure that you
couldn't sue somebody for taking a photo of your premises. If so, is
there at least a general "if it's public-access it's free to photograph"
rule? (I guess I can understand wanting to control photos of your backyard).

One can imagine a lot of "chilling effects" and "free speech violation"
 if a company could use such a "premise right" to prevent news photos
being taken of their property. Disturbing idea.

> In video there are also cameraman release forms as the person running the 
> camera is sometimes not the one who ends up with the copyright to the video.

That's just going to be a standard "work-for-hire" form, though, right?

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com