Re: 錄影授權書 and 講者行前通知

[李柏鋒 (Pofeng Lee) <pofeng gmail com>]

2010/7/13 Brian Cameron <brian cameron oracle com>

The release form just means that a photographer does not need to ask the speaker's permission if they are agreeable to this license.  If
a photographer wants to release photos of a person under a different
license, then the photographer would need to sign a separate release
form.  Our form is non-exclusive, so it doesn't prevent people from
doing this if they want.

So, I wouldn't think this is a problem.

OK,  I will also include "still pictures" is this form (Chinese Version).

( But In the most worse scenario, there will be 4 different kinds of
situation, for still pictures, video, CC-BY-NC-ND, CC-BY-SA. I hope it
 will not happen. :p )
 

For the still pictures, the photographers should be the volunteers from
COSCUP Team, and I believe they would
be very happy to release the pictures under CC-BY-SA 2.0 or 3.0.

If we want the agreement to specify that only photos and videos taken
by official representatives of the conference, we could add such
language.  However, I don't think it is really necessary to specify
this.

No, I do not think we should specify this either.

 

The license only requires providing attribution and that any
modifications must be under the same license.  What is problematic
about those conditions?

Do your colleagues need some photos or videos under a non-free license?
If so, can your colleagues ask speakers to sign a separate release form
so that any media is dual-licensed?

As I mentioned in previous email, CC-BY-SA imply that we can
sell the video for profit. I worry some speakers would not release
their video under CC-BY-SA.

And, IMHO, it is not really dual-licensed. I think we could provide
2 kinds of forms to let the speaker choose. One is CC-BY-ND-NC 2.0(3.0)  the other one is CC-BY-SA 2.0(3.0)

And are you going to freeze the English text or we shall wait for the
opinion from Software Freedom Law Center ?

-- 
Pofeng "informer" Lee, 李柏鋒, pofeng at gmail dot com