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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx > List membership: > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list > _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
