Releases for photographs
nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro
Mon May 17 07:28:58 UTC 2010
On 05/15/2010 02:15 AM, Karsten Wade wrote:
> Musing done with, now some specifics:
> * For Fedora's purposes, having a blanket usage agreement would be a
> must. We cannot return to photo subjects with each remix. Fedora
> has so many ways it has to keep community trust with personal
> issues, I don't think adding one's personal image is that much more
> of a risk. But if it goes wrong, it will be more visible than
> anything before and really, really, really piss people off. I agree
> with Paul that should be sufficient deterrent. Remember, image
> remixers, be respectful.
Definitely, there is no way we would ask for permission for each remix,
we need blanket permission.
> Some kind of caveat or limit might be useful to create comfort, if
> it can be baked in without making the rest of the agreement useless.
> (For example, if a person could pull back the rights in the future,
> it's a ticking time bomb until a few disgruntled contributors demand
> theirs removed and cause havoc.)
Probably we can try to limit the scope of usage, "to be used in relation
with the Fedora Project and Fedora Community", or something like that,
but then the license will not be truly Free, as the scope is limited.
> These are my pragmatic suggestions. I still don't know that I'm
> comfortable with either choice, freedom v. perceived
> * How does the situation work with respect to photographs taken in
> public? If I take a shot of people on the street, do I need their
> release? Is there a definition of where and under what conditions a
> release is needed?
> I ask because we've clearly all seen many photographs of people in
> the public put up on websites, where the subjects of the photos have
> no signed release.
I am not a lawyer, just a photographer living outside of the US and not
a native English speaker, so take my words with a big grain of salt: you
can take any shots in the public space, you are free do to that, but you
are limited in the way you *use* them. Private use is fine, public use
The big NO is to use someone's image without permission to promote goods
or services (and that's what we want to use the images, to promote Fedora).
On the other hand, is a legit use to use the image if it is a noticeable
news or had educational value.
It is also important is the person is recognizable and if he/she is the
main subject of the photo.
Let me put is as a concrete example: a beautiful woman passes by the
Fedora booth an a conference, we can't take a portrait of her without
permission and use on a poster/banner and saying "we are Fedora and we
rock". But it should be OK if we take a photo of the conference floor
when that beautiful woman happens to be somewhere in the crowd (or maybe
in the second plane, being charmed by one of our Ambassadors - from the
Ambassador himself we may not need anything, since he signed the CLA).
As for the many photos with people being displayed on so many
websites... on one hand the photos there do not promote product or
services and they rely on good faith - using someone's photo without
consent is a civil offense, is between the photographer and the model
and triggered only when the model is unhappy with the model.
Some sites, like deviantART.com try to find the right balance between
ease of use and model privacy by requiring signed forms only for photos
that may be controversial, those with nudity and those sold as prints.
Other sites prefer to look the other way and make it as easy as possible
for users to submit photos - this was the case with Flickr until they
started selling photos as stock with Getty Images.
In conclusion, there is a tough choice ahead of us: we can keep the
Freedom as in CC-BY or CC-BY-SA and understand the photos may be used in
ways we can't control or we limit the freedom and feel ourselves bad for
not following one of the 4 Foundations. I don't have the perfect answer
nicu :: http://photoblog.nicubunu.ro/
More information about the advisory-board