Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Karl Ebener <myonlyb AT vollbio.de>]

Hi Dana,

as far as I understand it after having read the wikipedia-article, the 
answer to my question would be:
1. Commercial use of the picture would violate to right to publicity 
which is part or parallel to the right to privacy.
2. Non-commercial use might violate the right to privacy, but the answer 
is not definite.

Would this summary be right?

Thanks a lot!
Karl

Dana Powers schrieb:
> In the U.S., this question is governed by state privacy law.  The most
> active cases deal with what is known as the "Right of Publicity,"
> dealing with commercial exploitation of a person's likeness.  The
> Wikipedia article is pretty informative:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_publicity
>
> State privacy law tends to be driven by case law, and I have not done
> much research into the specifics.  In "new" cases like these it may
> indeed have to be resolved through litigation in the courts before we
> have a definite answer.
>
> All the best,
>
> Dana Powers
>
> -this is not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_advice, yo
>
> On 10/4/07, paola.dimaio AT gmail.com <paola.dimaio AT gmail.com> wrote:
>   
> > 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
> > *********************************************
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
> >     
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>