Re: [Gimp-developer] wgo, model releases, and cc licensing

[Partha Bagchi <partha1b gmail com>]

Funny you should ask. :) Shutterbug has a recent article on this:

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/copyrights-model-releases-and-contracts-what-every-photographer-should-know

And you may want to look at what the American Society of Media
Photographers has to say:

http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html#.UkYCUWTXRU0



On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Pat David <patdavid gmail com> wrote:

> All,
>
> I had an interesting discussion today in IRC I'm summarizing here in order
> to clarify some sticky points.
>
> I had recently pushed a new tutorial that included an image I took of a
> friend.  Michael had concerns about the use of this image and the cc-by-sa
> license I was applying to the entire work.  Mainly, did I have a model
> release for the woman in the photograph (I thought I did, but didn't
> apparently).
>
> Due to the possible commercial use of cc-by-sa licensed works, there was a
> possible problem with using that image.  To be on the safe side, I replaced
> it with one of myself, but it did raise some interesting questions.
>
> 1. Are we to eschew images with recognizable people in them if we are
> lacking a model release in-hand (regardless of the licensing status from
> the rightsholder)?
>
> I have a query out to the cc mailing list to see if I can clarify how they
> view this, but haven't heard a good answer back yet.
>
> I posit that the responsibility of obtaining/keeping a model release for
> images that have been licensed cc-by/sa/nd is entirely the original
> rightsholders.  I *think* the premise of cc-licensing is that any required
> rights have previously been cleared/acquired by the rightsholder, but am
> not 100% sure.
>
> Does anyone know offhand how wikipedia handles this?  Many of their works
> are also cc-by-sa, and thus could possibly be used in commercial purposes.
>  Do they assume any images uploaded have been rights cleared for the
> individuals in those images?
>
> What about images licensed PD?  Are end-users cleared of liability on the
> assumption that the rightsholder had already cleared legal rights for using
> the subjects likeness?
>
> 2. If we do require ourselves to have model releases on-hand to be included
> on wgo, what would be the best way to disseminate those (and to whom)?
>  Keep in mind that often releases contain sensitive personal information
> about both the model and photographer.
>
> Just looking for a consensus on how best to proceed to avoid any problems.
>
> --
> pat david
> http://blog.patdavid.net
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> List address:    gimp-developer-list gnome org
> List membership:
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list