Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] license options for models

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jonathon <jblake AT eskimo.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] license options for models
  • Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:00:51 +0000

drew Roberts wrote:

So, just as a for instance, let's say you see a BY photo with a person in it. Should you feel safe to use it per the BY license, or do you need to see the model release forms as well to feel safe?

For a movie, or video, I'd insist upon a model release form.

If I was using a CC licenced photograph instead of a stock photograph, in only a few instances would I insist upon a model release:
* For an advertisement;
* Where it appears as if the person endorsed a product, or position;
* If the subject matter of the work was "controversial". [Whilst "controversial" is a vague term, one useful function of Wikipedia is to show where/what people can dispute/find controversial. If there has been an edit war on wikipedia, somebody thinks it is controversial.]

If your answer is you shoud feel safe, should the CC licenses have some distinction between advertising and endorsement

To be perfectly safe, a model release should be obtained inall instances. The main reason I insist on one in all cases described above, is because they are the most likely to result in a lawsuit.

If you answer is you need to see the release forms, should the license have some warning language as to other rights that can block you / get you in

No.
a) Adding warning statements about other rights will confuse everybody.
b) It is not the function of CC licences toprovide a crash course in Intellectual Property Rights law.

There are five major types of property:
* Public Property;
* Public Access Property;
* Private Access Property;
* Private Property;
* Restricted Access Property;

Well, if I remember properly, I have read that if you shoot from public property, you don't need release forms for at least as far down as Private

a) This depends upon the country one is in.
Personally, I prefer to err on the side of caution.

b) It isn't always obvious what type of property one is looking at.
[I remember one beach that was "restricted access" that had nothing more than a rusty barbed wire fence with a handwritten note saying "keep out, no trespassing" in the local language. Along both the _Appalachian Trail_ and _Pacific Crest Trail_ in the US are hundreds of signs that say "no trespassing" which are either "private access property", or (in very rare instances), "public access property".]

xan

jonathon




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page