Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 06 June 2007 05:52 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > 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?
>
> If the person who holds the copyright and makes the free-licensed
> release is the same as the subject of the photo (not the most common
> case!), then you might be able to argue that the act of licensing the
> work implies a release.
>
> In the general case, though, the copyright and privacy release have to
> come from two different people, so you would have to have gotten a
> release in order to pass it on to other users (and if there are any
> conditions placed on use by the subject, they will apply and may limit
> what you can do).
>
> > Could you give a conditional image release with a BY-SA license?
>
> Yes, I think you can.
>
> > 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."
>
> Ah, but the key here is that the privacy release is NOT an agreement
> between the "parties" referred to in the CC license, but between the
> subject and all users.

Remember, the case in question is a picture of myself (self-portrait) which I 
provice a CC BY-SA copyright license for, but either don't provide a release 
for or provide a release which prevents use in X-Rated environments or in 
political advertisments, or in cases where endorsement is implied.
>
> Potentially, this language would be binding if you *were also* the
> subject (an interesting point I would love to hear a more expert opinion
> about), but otherwise, no.

This is the exact case I am pondering here. So far, I don't do a lot of 
pictures with people in them for CC licenses because of my uncertainty.

Similar issues with movie footage I have shot. I have to come to grips with 
these issues at some point I guess. I have not seen much discussions in this 
area. Is no one operating in this area? Or is no once concerned? Or are most 
people blissfully ignorant of the implications?
>
> The person who would sue them is not you, who have agreed to the above
> terms, but the subject, who is not party to the CC licensing agreement
> at all.
>
> > I have a feeling that Free copyleft licenses are going to need
> > changes/refinements in the law to achieve their full potential.
>
> Sure.
>
> We could also change the law to make normal copyright more like the CC
> licensing regime. I think that NC-ND is a prototype for what some people
> think ought to be the default copyright law.
>
> In fact, many people already operate on the principle that this is the
> case (a lot of websites treat ARR material as if it were NC-ND), so
> there is a certain amount of expectation of it.
>
> I'm not sure our society is ready for that transition, though.

Sure. So we do what we can, but I think a lot of things are going to be way 
sub-optimal unless we can find a way to move from here to there.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

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