Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

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?

Personally, I'd want to see the model release.

This is probably a much touchier issue if the depicted person is (or
might be) a minor. Parents can get pretty touchy/paranoid about how
images of their children are used (which, being a parent, I can
sympathize with).

I don't know how to answer your further questions -- I've not really got
a clear idea what CC licenses should do about this.

The truth is that there is obviously a minefield of miscellaneous laws
that interfere in this area, and the danger to free expression is
clearly large. I have a problem with that, but I don't really know what
I can do about it.

The "low friction" associated with free-licensing requires clear,
unambiguous rules. All these fuzzy definitions are bad news for free
expression.

One thing that keeps coming back to me, based on all these "it depends
on what the creator intended" claims that I read (mainly from lawyers
and CC reps) here on list is the idea of "license incompatibility by
intent only".

What if Alice releases a photograph By-SA, thinking that the copyleft
entitles her to demand By-SA licensing on all works that contain
derivatives of hers (i.e. not merely the container). Bob, meanwhile,
releases another photo under the By-SA, with the understanding that
contained works are not bound by copyleft.

Conceptually, Alice has really licensed under some By-SA+, which is not
the official CC interpretation of the By-SA, while Bob has licensed
under By-SA, in agreement with the official interpretation. But CC does
not apparently have the authority to insist on its interpretation, so
Alice's interpretation is binding (not the CC interpretation).

I don't actually speak to either Alice or Bob, but I read the By-SA
license that is represented to license both, and find them compatible. I
create a By-SA work containing derivatives of both.

Unfortunately, I now have hung licensing and no right to publish (even
though I can't possibly know this from the license texts). BOTH Bob and
Alice can sue me.

Why? Because I've either violated Bob's license by adding an additional
restriction (Alice's "SA+") or I've violated Alice's license by not
re-licensing Bob's work under the "SA+".

We all know that copyleft incompatibility can occur due to using
distinct copyleft licenses (e.g. GPL and MPL conflict, GFDL and By-SA
conflict, etc), but can By-SA conflict with By-SA, purely on the basis
of interpretation?

Is there a way that CC licenses can defend against this? Perhaps by
making the license include an agreement to respect CC's interpretation
of its licenses?

> 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 
> Property on your list when it comes to property. (It may need to be obvious 
> that you shot from public property.)
> 
> Does anyone know of conflicting information?

That would be a bit reassuring. BTW, when we get to this level of
detail, we need to be specific about jurisdiction, I would imagine. I
bet this kind of distinction is different in different countries. Are we
assuming/including USA here?

Cheers,
Terry

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