Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 12 April 2007 01:00 pm, jonathon wrote:
> 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.

I am not so sure I agree with that position. This:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

says you are free to do those things, not that you have a copyright license 
to 
do them but may still need to clear other rights. Is this being 
irresponsible? On the part of CC? On the part of people using the CC licenses?

Perhaps the licenses should not have the warning but the CC site should have 
it? If so, should the license at least point to it?
>
> >> 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.

If you are correct, google maps could be in a world of trouble. They have a 
pic of my house up there and no signed release for the same.
>
> 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".]

Can you give a quick explanation for those of us who are ignorant on the 
matter, the difference between Private Property and Restricted Access 
Property?
>
> xan
>
> jonathon

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)