Releases for photographs

[Jon Stanley]

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:

> remixing.[1]  But people generally aren't as comfortable letting
> someone reuse their faces in a completely unexpected context, like
> selling cigarettes or in a photo manipulation contest.  And of course,
> Fedora contributors might use people as subjects in their photos who
> aren't contributors.  For these reasons, we can't simply include this
> kind of release into our new contributor agreement.

Agreed on all points. Using people that aren't contributors as
subjects raises some interesting challenges for using FAS to record
this release (or getting in contact with them at all in the event of
some future problem), as you had mentioned below. I absolutely believe
there needs to be a separate photography release from the CLA/FPCA,
they're designed to protect entirely different interests.

> As a project, we'd very much like to continue having people
> participate through photography, for materials like our one-page
> release notes[2].  To do that, we probably need to have a general
> release form that covers photos of people to be published on the wiki,
> or reproduced in paper formats for release and publicity materials
> related to the Fedora Project.  Unlike the licenses we require for
> code, though, the release would only be for Fedora's use and no one
> else's.
.
Really? When I did the usability testing with Mo at FUDCon Toronto, I
had to sign a release for that which stated that the raw footage would
be released as CC-BY-ND or something of that nature. I'd be much more
comfortable with a non-free license such as that which still gives
protection to the subject while still allowing use by others than
simply Fedora.

> Assuming we reach a point of having such a release, we'd add a note to
> the wiki footer about the specific exception to our CC BY-SA 3.0
> licensing where photographs of people are concerned.  We'd link to an
> appropriate new section on the Legal page indicating the restrictions
> around the content, explain why, and point to the release form.

Seems reasonable, but probably should be a little more prominent than that.

> * Given the rights people generally have in the use of their faces and
>  bodies in published materials, is this an appropriate place for us
>  to make an exception to our principle of reusability and
>  remixability?

Absolutely on the remixability side, but I think they should be
reusable in their original context (which may be hard to do - if
someone includes a photo of me in a book about some unscrupulous
topic, does the inclusion of that unaltered photo into a larger
aggregate make it a derivative work, such that the protections of
CC-BY-ND would apply?). If the reusability concerns can't be resolved
separate from the remixability concerns, then I personally (and I
think many others) would opt to forgo the reusability than to have no
protection.

> * Are there ways you wouldn't be comfortable with the Fedora Project
>  using a photo of you?

Not in any context having to do with Fedora as it exists today. The
issue becomes some future unknown - what if some FPL without a moral
compass comes along and decides that porn.fp.o is the right thing to
do? Obviously that's an extreme example that would never fly, but it'd
be nice to have some sort of assurance that won't happen. I realize
that this puts me in conflict with my previous paragraph. Live with
it. :)

> * Would you like to have the ability to grant this kind of release
>  within the Fedora Account System?

Yes, the easier the better!