Add something about property releases too. The strange thing is that there is so much information out that is simply not true. And then the laws keep changing without a lot of fanfare. Which is why anyone in the high bucks range of the business should have a competent copyright attorney, not because it is hard to understand the laws, but because he keeps up on what they are today. However to simplify things these are some to the rights you have to look into when you want to use images commercially:
The rights of the people in the image The rights of the owners of the property in the image The rights of the government to restrict the image The rights of the photographer/artist The rights of any agents involved The rights of the copyright holder Some of those rights may belong the same people, but some of them may belong to somebody you would not even consider. BTW notice how far down that list the rights of the copyright holder is, if he have not obtained permission of the rights holders higher up the list he does not have a commercially usable image. You do not need a release to put someone's photo on the cover of Time (provided it has something to do with the news content in the issue), but --even in china-- you had better have a written release from anyone you put up on a billboard -graywolf Mark Roberts wrote: > Juan Buhler wrote: > >> The article writes doesn't seem to have an understanding of what >> Creative Commons really is. > > Nor do the plaintiffs in the lawsuit! I just noticed that they're suing > Creative Commons in addition to Virgin! > >> It is not an entity that licenses photos, it is an entity that makes >> standard licenses available for those of us who would like to put >> our work out there under something a bit less restrictive than full >> copyright. >> >> That said, Virgin's mistake was to neglect looking for a model >> release. The photo itself was released under a CC license that >> allowed commercial use, and this is something that the >> photographer has to do explicitly. So the photographer also >> messed up here, and he has really no recourse. It is trivially easy >> to have a CC license that allows other uses but disallows >> commercial use. > > Do you think that the photographer chose a license that allows > commercial use by mistake, when he just intended to allow copying? I > hadn't thought of that but it make sense. > >> My pictures are released under CC >> attribution,non-commercial-share alike" that means people can >> use them for non commercial purposes, and they can remix them >> in collages or in a documentary or whatever. If they do so though, >> they have to 1) credit my picture and 2) release >> their work under a similar or more permissive license. > > Students can use even "all rights reserved" works in course projects > under Fair Use, but they do have to give credit to the copyright > holder. Oddly enough, I just gave my annual "Copyright lecture" to my > multimedia authoring students last night! I encourage them to use all > their own material if at all possible, but explain the proper way of > using other people's work if they really need to. I emphasize that Fair > Use means they can use other people's material in their course > projects, but that means they won't be able to use any material they > produce in school for profit after they graduate. > >> It's simple once you take the time to think about it a bit. The >> photographer in question didn't. > > I'm going to add a bit about model releases to my copyright lecture > from now on! > >>>> <http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=76588> > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
