Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 06 June 2007 12:16 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Kai Hendry wrote:
> > I am wondering how BY: license in regards to people's privacy IN the
> > picture.
>
> It doesn't.
>
> > A company is asking to use one of my BY: licensed images on flickr and
> > I just want them to use it!
> >
> >> while it says we
> >> can use the work of the photographer, there is no protection for
> >> those individuals IN the picture. The BY: releases copyright but it
> >> does not release image privacy.
>
> No offense, but they're right and you're wrong. Sorry! :-)

This seems like a good time to bring up something I have been pondering 
lately.

So, copyright law is seperate from the law covering the use of someone's 
image?

So I release a picture of myself BY-SA but with the intention not to give a 
release on the use of the image. Does my giving the copyright license force 
me to give the release?

Normally this would seem stupid to me. However, moral rights countries have 
other protections should someone use your image in a nasty manner. Would the 
lack of a release give some sort of protection for the same issues?

Could you give a conditional image release with a BY-SA license?

How does this release match up with the only agreement language in the 
license? Is that language still there? (Off to check...)  Yes. 8.e.

"This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with 
respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or 
representations with respect to the Work not specified here."
>
> > I don't want to sign/scan release forms and what-not.
>
> Fortunately, they've given you an easier out:
> >> If not, then if you can send us an email as a release, that would be
> >> good as well. Basically, just read what we sent you for a release,
> >> copy and paste or type up a similar release document in an email. All
> >> it needs to say is that we can use the photo and you will not sue us
> >> for it. Please include the name of the photo as well as BCP and
> >> Veria. At the bottom, be sure to include your name and your father's
> >> name.
>
> Of course, you could just refuse. But the publisher would have legal
> liability, and they obviously don't want to risk that, so they won't run
> the picture.
>
> Privacy rights are a whole different matter outside the scope of both
> copyright and CC licenses. There are a number of laws that restrict
> documents -- especially images -- outside of copyright:
>
> 1) privacy laws, as in this case
> 2) censorship laws, such as those forbidding pornography (or in some
> countries, religious or political statements)
> 3) national security issues, such as maps or aerial photos of military
> installations (some countries make photographs of police illegal!)
> 4) technology transfer laws, such as diagrams or photographs of
> assemblies which are deemed too sensitive to export (AFAIK, the US is
> the worst culprit here)
> 5) trademark laws, such as company logos
>
> and of course, this varies a lot by country.
>
> Probably there are too many of these laws. Freedom of speech is not so
> broad as we would like it to be. You could start a political movement,
> or possibly even stage a coup d'etat, to change this state of affairs.
>
> But this is the situation we have now. :-)
>
> IANAL, TINLA, etc.

I have a feeling that Free copyleft licenses are going to need 
changes/refinements in the law to achieve their full potential.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
Working on a Movie Script or two in June 2007