Releases for photographs

[Paul Frields]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote:
[...snip...]
> Right now we're all thinking of the positive uses of our personal
> image.  Soon enough we'll all start thinking of the negative.
> Meanwhile, we never know is the endless possibilities of truly freed
> content.
>
> On the other hand ...
>
> When we chose non-free we forever close a road whose outcome we'll
> never know, good and bad.  We _could_ be more disturbed by our work
> being used in a criminal racket or a missile guidance system, yet it's
> our personal words and images where we feel the discomfort start.
>
> If we're bold enough to allow the world of good and ill that comes
> from our work on software, why aren't we bold enough to do the same
> with our personal images?

The negatives are pretty easy to conjure up. It's very clear that my
content and code are *not* me. I know people could use them for
purposes with which I don't agree. But if someone did that, I think
it's a lot harder for a third party to be confused that somehow I
condoned or agreed with that purpose. But using my face to advertise
for those same purposes is a much more personal connection to me, and
it's then much easier for a third party to be confused.

J.D. Salinger authored "Catcher in the Rye," which for some reason has
inspired many troubled people to commit violent acts. But it's
difficult to say based on authorship that J.D. Salinger condones
violence on other people. On the other hand if J.D. Salinger's face
appeared on an ad for handguns, the situation would be more confusing
-- thus, I'd assume (IANAL), arises in part a person's interest in and
rights of publicity.

> 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.
>
>  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.)
>
>  These are my pragmatic suggestions.  I still don't know that I'm
>  comfortable with either choice, freedom v. perceived
>  privacy/control.

I don't know how the text would work specifically, but I think you're
right that we want the agreement to be a non-timed release that allows
us to reuse and remix, as long as it's for purposes of promoting
Fedora. So while Red Hat is the legal entity that is granted the
release, I wouldn't expect the agreement to allow Red Hat to use these
photographs for any purposes other than promoting or benefiting the
Fedora Project.

> * 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.

Again IANAL, but my understanding's that photographs in public that
aren't intended as portraits are different. I believer there may also
be a difference for portraits where the photographer's not making any
commercial use of the photograph (like your friend taking a picture of
you and posting it on Flickr).

Paul