Development of Creative Commons licenses

[paola.dimaio AT gmail.com]

Andres
good points

I rhink when you load youw own images, you are OK
Is when loading other people's pictures that you might be infringing
their privacy
unless consent has been expressed (explicitly or impicitly perhaps)
especially if the photo ends up being 'used'

also I think anyone has the right to request the withdrawal if they so wish

Paola Di Maio

On 10/4/07, Andres Guadamuz <a.guadamuz AT ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Karl,
>
> Interesting question. Besides moral rights, I would like to mention the
> European Court of Jusice decision re Bodil Lindqvist (ECJ Case C-.
> 101/01). Although Data Protection should not be equated with privacy,
> the ECJ ruled that posting personal data on a website is "processing" in
> the sense of the DP directive (95/46/EC), and therefore subject to
> registration, notification and the many other DP principles. Pictures
> are personal data (and in some circumstances, may even be sensible
> personal data), so I would agree that under some circumstances, courts
> may answer "yes" to the question of violation of rights.
>
> Nevertheless, I think that way madness lies. If every European image in
> Flickr is in violation of data protection principles, we would be
> presented with an unenforceable situation. DP commissioners and
> ombudsmen around Europe are already working overtime, and I cannot see
> them going into Flickr issuing fines against users that have failed to
> register as data controllers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andres
>
>
> Karl Ebener wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > most people should have noticed the discussion about the Virgin Mobile
> > case. I have a question that arose when I read the comments from
> > Lawrence Lessig and the CC Corporation on this topic:
> >
> > In US law, how is the distribution of pictures of someone over the
> > internet to be treated?
> >
> > Lessig writes
> > (http://lessig.org/blog/2007/09/on_the_texas_suit_against_virg.html):
> > "I doubt that any court would find the photographer in this case had
> > violated any right of privacy merely by posting a photograph like this
> > on Flickr."
> >
> > and CC writes (http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680):
> > "So did the photographer violate Ms. Chang's rights?
> > We certainly don't think so. We don't believe any court should find that
> > Justin Wong had violated Ms. Chang's rights simply by posting this photo
> > of her in Flickr, however it was licensed. Cool (as in using Flickr, and
> > even better, using Flickr with CC licenses) can't be a crime."
> >
> > Is that so in US law (after having read above, I assume so)? And if so:
> > why? Is there any written law/decision(s) on this topic? Or any source
> > where I could look this up?
> >
> > I ask, because in Germany the right to a picture of you is part of the
> > general moral rights and any distribution is subject to your consent...
> > Thus, in Germany, the question "So did the photographer violate Ms.
> > Chang's rights?" would most like be answered with "Yes"...
> >
> > Thank you very much
> > Karl
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> --
> Andres Guadamuz
> AHRC Research Centre for Studies in
> Intellectual Property and Technology Law
> Old College, South Bridge
> Edinburgh EH8 9YL
>
> Tel: 44 (0)131 6509699
> Fax: 44 (0)131 6506317
> a.guadamuz AT ed.ac.uk
> http://technollama.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************