Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 11 April 2007 08:42 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> 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.

The thing is, what needs to be covered in a release form to allow releasing 
under the various CC licenses? Does BY require more to be "released" than 
BY-NC-ND? It would seem like ti might.
>
> 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.

And does BY and BY-SA allow the use of people appearing in them for 
endorsement as well as advertising purposes?
>
> But I think those restrictions are reasonable and should not be
> considered "non-free" (for those of us who care about free-licensing).

I care about free licensing. I see a restriction on endorsement as OK, but 
one 
on advertising as not OK.

For an example of each:

Advertising: Take a BY photo of a picnic scene and paste in a "celebrity" 
holding "brand X" drink and a caption "celebrity drinks brand X."

Endorsement: Take a BY photo of a picnic scene and paste in a "brand Y" drink 
into the hand of someone already in the scene and a caption "I drink brand Y, 
it's the best!"
>
> 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.

The point is, if CC wants to lower "friction" and increase safe use of works, 
should't people at least be advised to make the release forms needed 
available in the same locations as the works?

Or am I totally confused due to my ignorance and just barking up the wrong 
tree?
>
> > 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.

It would seem it has the potential to drive costs of operating in the clear 
throught the roof as well, no?
>
> > 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?

Well, here are the forms that one film maker uses:

http://www.kittyfeet.com/30bucks/release_forms.ZIP


>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)