Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

jonathon wrote:
>> I'm not sure that's as baseless as the article suggests, although I
>> personally feel that using NC to avoid model-release issues is a bad
>> precedent all around.
> 
> NC doesn't make model release requirements redundant.

That's why it'd be a bad precedent! ;-)

No, the point is that most uses for which a model-release are really
important are commercial uses (at least the ones you're going to get a
large settlement on).

If a work were licensed NC, the licensee would need to query the
photographer about using the work, which would be the time when
model-releases would get discussed. The photographer in a case like this
is likely to be able to get in contact with the subject in order to get
a release.

Of course, it is certainly true that model-releases could be an issue
even for non-commercial uses. But the subject of the photo is less
likely to be concerned about such uses.

Of course, I don't really believe that CC had any legal responsibility
to communicate such a theory to CC licensors. But the complaint makes
much more sense as a "truth in advertising" case than as anything to do
with model releases being implied (or not) by copyright licenses.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com