Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Fedora Advisory Board (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-advisory-board/)
-   -   Releases for photographs (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-advisory-board/367324-releases-photographs.html)

"Paul W. Frields" 05-06-2010 07:13 PM

Releases for photographs
 
As we put together new marketing and release materials it's clear the
Fedora Marketing and Design teams want to show the many varied faces
of our community in conjunction with Fedora. We have a lot of great
people who put a huge amount of time into making this a fantastic
project and distro. Showing their faces in Fedora makes a strong
statement about Fedora and our community.

However, as the photographers among you know, presenting people as
subjects in photos can generate some legal issues. Photographers
often have models or subjects complete a release form for several
reasons. One of the most prominent is to allow the photographer to use
the photos as described without fear of legal repercussions from the
subject. This release is not for the copyright in the photo, which
belongs to the photographer, but for permission from the person shown
in the photo to use an image of his or her face and body publicly.

This release, though, doesn't really work the same way as licensing of
code and content. Our participants willingly contribute code and
other content under licenses that allow a wide variety of reuse and
remixing.[1] But people generally aren't as comfortable letting
someone reuse their faces in a completely unexpected context, like
selling cigarettes or in a photo manipulation contest. And of course,
Fedora contributors might use people as subjects in their photos who
aren't contributors. For these reasons, we can't simply include this
kind of release into our new contributor agreement.

As a project, we'd very much like to continue having people
participate through photography, for materials like our one-page
release notes[2]. To do that, we probably need to have a general
release form that covers photos of people to be published on the wiki,
or reproduced in paper formats for release and publicity materials
related to the Fedora Project. Unlike the licenses we require for
code, though, the release would only be for Fedora's use and no one
else's.

Assuming we reach a point of having such a release, we'd add a note to
the wiki footer about the specific exception to our CC BY-SA 3.0
licensing where photographs of people are concerned. We'd link to an
appropriate new section on the Legal page indicating the restrictions
around the content, explain why, and point to the release form.

Because we realize this practice departs from our normal principle of
completely reusable and remixable content, our legal counsel and I
want to discuss this with the community, and hear their thoughts and
concerns regarding a release. I had a few specific questions to start
with:

* Given the rights people generally have in the use of their faces and
bodies in published materials, is this an appropriate place for us
to make an exception to our principle of reusability and
remixability?

* Are there ways you wouldn't be comfortable with the Fedora Project
using a photo of you?

* Would you like to have the ability to grant this kind of release
within the Fedora Account System?

* * *

[1] The CC BY-SA 3.0 license we use for content predicts that there
might be content in which someone has rights other than copyrights
that may need to be addressed separately. From the human-readable
summary of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license: "In no way are any of the
following rights affected by the license: . . . Rights other
persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is
used, such as publicity or privacy rights."

[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_one_page_release_notes
(Note all the people on this page have specific release forms on
file, but we would like to generalize the process and make it as
easy as possible to contribute.)

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

"Nicu Buculei" 05-06-2010 09:28 PM

Releases for photographs
 
Paul W. Frields wrote:
> However, as the photographers among you know, presenting people as
> subjects in photos can generate some legal issues. Photographers
> often have models or subjects complete a release form for several
> reasons. One of the most prominent is to allow the photographer to use
> the photos as described without fear of legal repercussions from the
> subject. This release is not for the copyright in the photo, which
> belongs to the photographer, but for permission from the person shown
> in the photo to use an image of his or her face and body publicly.

Actually the one interested in release forms is the publisher/editor, from
the photographer's point of view, having the forms is just something amkig
him easier to sell the photos to the publisher, but in the end the legal
burden is on the publisher.

> This release, though, doesn't really work the same way as licensing of
> code and content. Our participants willingly contribute code and
> other content under licenses that allow a wide variety of reuse and
> remixing.[1] But people generally aren't as comfortable letting
> someone reuse their faces in a completely unexpected context, like
> selling cigarettes or in a photo manipulation contest. And of course,
> Fedora contributors might use people as subjects in their photos who
> aren't contributors. For these reasons, we can't simply include this
> kind of release into our new contributor agreement.

publishing photography is a bit different, since there are multiple
parties involved, the publisher has to secure rights from both the
photographer and the model. The photographer can license his work under a
Free license, but this is not enough for the publisher, he has to also
secure the model's permission.

> As a project, we'd very much like to continue having people
> participate through photography, for materials like our one-page
> release notes[2]. To do that, we probably need to have a general
> release form that covers photos of people to be published on the wiki,
> or reproduced in paper formats for release and publicity materials
> related to the Fedora Project. Unlike the licenses we require for
> code, though, the release would only be for Fedora's use and no one
> else's.

Indeed, there are many places where we can use photos of peopel.

> Because we realize this practice departs from our normal principle of
> completely reusable and remixable content, our legal counsel and I
> want to discuss this with the community, and hear their thoughts and
> concerns regarding a release. I had a few specific questions to start
> with:
>
> * Given the rights people generally have in the use of their faces and
> bodies in published materials, is this an appropriate place for us
> to make an exception to our principle of reusability and
> remixability?

I expect we have people in the community happy to allow the usage uf their
image.

> * Are there ways you wouldn't be comfortable with the Fedora Project
> using a photo of you?

Me? NOT.

> * Would you like to have the ability to grant this kind of release
> within the Fedora Account System?

That would be easier than signing and faxing papers.

--
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com


_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

"Paul W. Frields" 05-06-2010 10:16 PM

Releases for photographs
 
Nicu, thanks -- you correctly noted that photographers have an
interest in their work too. That's a copyright interest, and we have
ways to deal with that already in Fedora, namely the CLA, soon the
FPCA. I wanted to clarify something in your answers below, though:

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:28:28AM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > * Given the rights people generally have in the use of their faces and
> > bodies in published materials, is this an appropriate place for us
> > to make an exception to our principle of reusability and
> > remixability?
>
> I expect we have people in the community happy to allow the usage uf their
> image.

I think we definitely have lots of people like that. But the issue is
also whether the community at large, including people not in the
pictures, think this is an OK place for us not to be 100% reusable and
remixable. That's an important point, because we try to maintain that
aspect of Fedora everywhere else, so I wouldn't want to treat it too
lightly. When someone asks about that exception, it's helpful to show
how we transparently came to a final answer.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Jon Stanley 05-06-2010 11:58 PM

Releases for photographs
 
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:

> remixing.[1] *But people generally aren't as comfortable letting
> someone reuse their faces in a completely unexpected context, like
> selling cigarettes or in a photo manipulation contest. *And of course,
> Fedora contributors might use people as subjects in their photos who
> aren't contributors. *For these reasons, we can't simply include this
> kind of release into our new contributor agreement.

Agreed on all points. Using people that aren't contributors as
subjects raises some interesting challenges for using FAS to record
this release (or getting in contact with them at all in the event of
some future problem), as you had mentioned below. I absolutely believe
there needs to be a separate photography release from the CLA/FPCA,
they're designed to protect entirely different interests.

> As a project, we'd very much like to continue having people
> participate through photography, for materials like our one-page
> release notes[2]. *To do that, we probably need to have a general
> release form that covers photos of people to be published on the wiki,
> or reproduced in paper formats for release and publicity materials
> related to the Fedora Project. *Unlike the licenses we require for
> code, though, the release would only be for Fedora's use and no one
> else's.
.
Really? When I did the usability testing with Mo at FUDCon Toronto, I
had to sign a release for that which stated that the raw footage would
be released as CC-BY-ND or something of that nature. I'd be much more
comfortable with a non-free license such as that which still gives
protection to the subject while still allowing use by others than
simply Fedora.

> Assuming we reach a point of having such a release, we'd add a note to
> the wiki footer about the specific exception to our CC BY-SA 3.0
> licensing where photographs of people are concerned. *We'd link to an
> appropriate new section on the Legal page indicating the restrictions
> around the content, explain why, and point to the release form.

Seems reasonable, but probably should be a little more prominent than that.

> * Given the rights people generally have in the use of their faces and
> *bodies in published materials, is this an appropriate place for us
> *to make an exception to our principle of reusability and
> *remixability?

Absolutely on the remixability side, but I think they should be
reusable in their original context (which may be hard to do - if
someone includes a photo of me in a book about some unscrupulous
topic, does the inclusion of that unaltered photo into a larger
aggregate make it a derivative work, such that the protections of
CC-BY-ND would apply?). If the reusability concerns can't be resolved
separate from the remixability concerns, then I personally (and I
think many others) would opt to forgo the reusability than to have no
protection.

> * Are there ways you wouldn't be comfortable with the Fedora Project
> *using a photo of you?

Not in any context having to do with Fedora as it exists today. The
issue becomes some future unknown - what if some FPL without a moral
compass comes along and decides that porn.fp.o is the right thing to
do? Obviously that's an extreme example that would never fly, but it'd
be nice to have some sort of assurance that won't happen. I realize
that this puts me in conflict with my previous paragraph. Live with
it. :)

> * Would you like to have the ability to grant this kind of release
> *within the Fedora Account System?

Yes, the easier the better!
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Ian Weller 05-07-2010 03:12 AM

Releases for photographs
 
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 03:13:50PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> [snip]

This may be relevant.

https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/2/2c/Picture_book_release_form.pdf

--
Ian Weller <ian@ianweller.org>
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

"Paul W. Frields" 05-11-2010 07:44 PM

Releases for photographs
 
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 10:12:08PM -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 03:13:50PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> This may be relevant.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/2/2c/Picture_book_release_form.pdf

Hi Ian,

It is a relevant form, directly related to a specific publication.
For those who don't know, this is a back-burner project in the
Marketing team to produce an album as sort of a keepsake or gift,
featuring photographs of contributors and text that talks about the
Fedora Project and community. The purpose of this conversation is to
try and get a similar release that more generally accommodates use of
photographs for use in publicizing Fedora releases, events, and other
Fedora Project work.

One of the main purposes of this discussion is to find out to what
extent *not* allowing remixing of that content affects the community's
satisfaction with it. Thus far, I don't detect any upswelling of
dissatisfaction with limiting re-use in the context of photographs of
people. What were your thoughts about that particular issue?

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

"Paul W. Frields" 05-11-2010 08:31 PM

Releases for photographs
 
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 07:58:42PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As a project, we'd very much like to continue having people
> > participate through photography, for materials like our one-page
> > release notes[2]. *To do that, we probably need to have a general
> > release form that covers photos of people to be published on the wiki,
> > or reproduced in paper formats for release and publicity materials
> > related to the Fedora Project. *Unlike the licenses we require for
> > code, though, the release would only be for Fedora's use and no one
> > else's.
> .
> Really? When I did the usability testing with Mo at FUDCon Toronto, I
> had to sign a release for that which stated that the raw footage would
> be released as CC-BY-ND or something of that nature. I'd be much more
> comfortable with a non-free license such as that which still gives
> protection to the subject while still allowing use by others than
> simply Fedora.

The problem with Creative Commons licenses is that they don't affect
your rights of publicity or privacy. In fact, they specifically say
they *don't* cover those rights, and if I understand that correctly,
it means CC licenses can't be used to protect those rights. (IANAL,
after all.)

> > Assuming we reach a point of having such a release, we'd add a note to
> > the wiki footer about the specific exception to our CC BY-SA 3.0
> > licensing where photographs of people are concerned. *We'd link to an
> > appropriate new section on the Legal page indicating the restrictions
> > around the content, explain why, and point to the release form.
>
> Seems reasonable, but probably should be a little more prominent than that.

The only issue being we have a limited amount of space in our footer
and don't want to overwhelm it with content about one specific legal
issue. Here's the page where we cover general Legal information on
the wiki:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Main

So that's where we'd point from the footer text. We're trying to
incorporate the same site design across the Fedora Project so it's
easiest if we direct somewhere consistently from all our sites, and
the wiki gives us a way to do that. There are ACLs on the page to
keep it from being publicly modified, because it contains site-wide
legal information.

> > * Given the rights people generally have in the use of their faces and
> > *bodies in published materials, is this an appropriate place for us
> > *to make an exception to our principle of reusability and
> > *remixability?
>
> Absolutely on the remixability side, but I think they should be
> reusable in their original context (which may be hard to do - if
> someone includes a photo of me in a book about some unscrupulous
> topic, does the inclusion of that unaltered photo into a larger
> aggregate make it a derivative work, such that the protections of
> CC-BY-ND would apply?). If the reusability concerns can't be resolved
> separate from the remixability concerns, then I personally (and I
> think many others) would opt to forgo the reusability than to have no
> protection.

It would make it a derivative work. But publishing your picture alone
or in a different context might not be. Obviously you already see the
problem cropping up here! :-)

> > * Are there ways you wouldn't be comfortable with the Fedora Project
> > *using a photo of you?
>
> Not in any context having to do with Fedora as it exists today. The
> issue becomes some future unknown - what if some FPL without a moral
> compass comes along and decides that porn.fp.o is the right thing to
> do? Obviously that's an extreme example that would never fly, but it'd
> be nice to have some sort of assurance that won't happen. I realize
> that this puts me in conflict with my previous paragraph. Live with
> it. :)

Noted. :-) I'd say this is another of the areas where our community
expects and demands that we not mistreat their trust in the
contributions they provide. The costs of not meeting that trust are
high enough to be a very effective incentive to Do The Right Thing.

> > * Would you like to have the ability to grant this kind of release
> > *within the Fedora Account System?
>
> Yes, the easier the better!

Since this permission isn't connected to a CLA, this type of flag may
only be manageable for people who are registered contributors. But if
there's a reasonable way we can provide it, we can add a RFE to FAS
for it once we're sure it solves a problem for us.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Nicu Buculei 05-12-2010 05:44 AM

Releases for photographs
 
On 05/11/2010 11:31 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 07:58:42PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
>> Really? When I did the usability testing with Mo at FUDCon Toronto, I
>> had to sign a release for that which stated that the raw footage would
>> be released as CC-BY-ND or something of that nature. I'd be much more
>> comfortable with a non-free license such as that which still gives
>> protection to the subject while still allowing use by others than
>> simply Fedora.
>
> The problem with Creative Commons licenses is that they don't affect
> your rights of publicity or privacy. In fact, they specifically say
> they *don't* cover those rights, and if I understand that correctly,
> it means CC licenses can't be used to protect those rights. (IANAL,
> after all.)

You are right, but this is not because they are CC (free) licenses, is
because they are issued by the photographer, not by the model. Look at a
common release form to see what things are covered there... let me quote
from mine:

"use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures
of me or in which I may be included intact or in part, composite or
distorted in character or form, or derivative works, without restriction
as to changes or transformations, in conjunction with my own or a
fictitious name, made through any and all media now or hereafter known
for illustration, art, promotion, advertising, trade, exhibition, or any
other lawful purposes, and I waive any right to inspect or approve the
photograph(s) or finished version(s) incorporating the photograph(s)"

--
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

"Paul W. Frields" 05-12-2010 01:56 PM

Releases for photographs
 
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 08:44:21AM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 11:31 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 07:58:42PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
> >> Really? When I did the usability testing with Mo at FUDCon Toronto, I
> >> had to sign a release for that which stated that the raw footage would
> >> be released as CC-BY-ND or something of that nature. I'd be much more
> >> comfortable with a non-free license such as that which still gives
> >> protection to the subject while still allowing use by others than
> >> simply Fedora.
> >
> > The problem with Creative Commons licenses is that they don't affect
> > your rights of publicity or privacy. In fact, they specifically say
> > they *don't* cover those rights, and if I understand that correctly,
> > it means CC licenses can't be used to protect those rights. (IANAL,
> > after all.)
>
> You are right, but this is not because they are CC (free) licenses, is
> because they are issued by the photographer, not by the model. Look at a
> common release form to see what things are covered there... let me quote
> from mine:
>
> "use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures
> of me or in which I may be included intact or in part, composite or
> distorted in character or form, or derivative works, without restriction
> as to changes or transformations, in conjunction with my own or a
> fictitious name, made through any and all media now or hereafter known
> for illustration, art, promotion, advertising, trade, exhibition, or any
> other lawful purposes, and I waive any right to inspect or approve the
> photograph(s) or finished version(s) incorporating the photograph(s)"

That's correct AIUI -- the CC license addresses the copyright of the
photographer, not the publicity or privacy rights of the model.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Karsten Wade 05-14-2010 11:15 PM

Releases for photographs
 
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 03:44:37PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
> One of the main purposes of this discussion is to find out to what
> extent *not* allowing remixing of that content affects the community's
> satisfaction with it. Thus far, I don't detect any upswelling of
> dissatisfaction with limiting re-use in the context of photographs of
> people. What were your thoughts about that particular issue?

Paul, I took a very long time to come to the decision to relicense all
my blog content (backward, forward) under a free content license.
(Not quite ready to put on a CC BY SA tattoo to declare my very
existence as free content, but this thread tempts me.)

My lengthy contemplationk was specifically because of my feeling of a
personal relationship to the words that was different than other
works. It's one thing to openly publish a personal journal, another
to say that anyone, anywhere, anytime can do what they want with the
content.

Now that we are talking about our personal image, body politics become
involved. I think we need some time to let this sink in to our
consciousness. I wonder if a lack of response on this topic is
because people haven't throught through the consequences in either
direction?

On one hand ...

People were *freaked out* when an ad company used Facebook's API to
pull user photos in to adverts, yet the terms of use for facebook.com
clearly gave the right to do that.

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?

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.

* 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.

Thanks - Karsten
--
name: Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Community Gardener
team: Red Hat Community Architecture
uri: http://TheOpenSourceWay.org/wiki
gpg: AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:32 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.