Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 06 October 2007 10:11 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > This is where I think it could be helpful for the law to take note of
> > Free Copyleft licenses.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I am not totally sure that I fully buy my line above, but I certainly
> > think a person should get a Free Copyleft license to any images taken of
> > them by any photographer in any place not taken at their instigation
> > should they wish to use the image under such a license.
>
> drew, this paragraph totally changed the meaning of the previous lines
> for me, and now I'm confused by your email (clearly I wasn't
> understanding what you meant).

Could you explain the different ways you looked at it? So, I think that what 
I 
wrote above was really an "if" type statement.

IF a photagrapher can legally take a picture of me in a public place and 
publish it under any conditions whatsoever, fair use, for news purposes, and 
licensed all rights reserved, or any CC license, or any other license, where 
they do not need my permission to publish under the law, THEN I should get 
the right to force them to relicense their work which contains my image, 
under a Free and copyleft license should I so desire. (Not that the law works 
this way, but that it should IF the "IF" condition holds.) Can you get what I 
am saying from that convoluted ramble?

I think it only fair that IF they can use my image without my permisson or 
compensating me, THEN I can force free use of their work containing my image.
>
> I think that you (and everyone) discussing the idea of "rights granted"
> either under statute or license, should (for clarity) be very specific
> about WHOSE rights you mean.
>
> I think this will not only promote better communication on the list, but
> also clearer thinking for yourself. In this situation, we have at least
> four, maybe five, possible distinct rights-holding entities in the work:
>
> 1) The person photographed

Right, and I argue with myself about how these rights should go.

> 2) The photographer
> 3) The person publishing the photograph online
> 4) The person downloading the photograph from a website
> 5) A person wanting to make a derivative/adaptation of the work
>
> Photo-releases involve 1 and possibly 2. The release may be worded to
> include 3 & 4 under various terms.
>
> 5 is distinct with CC licenses, because only derivatives can be
> re-licensed to a later or alternate-locale license (which, after our
> little "Spanish moral rights" discussion, which appears to indicate that
> some locales have far more risky and restrictive licensing than others,
> I'm beginning to think is awfully important).
>
> Also, we should remember that far more can be granted by statute than by
> license, 

Of course.

> so the model of a statute as "granting a license" can be a 
> little shaky. It means a lot more to say that something is
> "non-copyrightable" than just to say that it's "in the public domain"
> (copyleft is an attempt to mimic this distinction, but it's imperfect).
>
> Cheers,
> Terry