File talk:Visual consent image.jpg
Questions about scope and wording of sign
edit
"Text of sign: Consent is hereby given by all involved with images of people in this picture. We agree it will be published with a CC-by-3.0 or similar licence. This means it can be used by anyone for any purpose including commercial. They will still need to follow local laws governing its use."
Isn't the issue more of defamation and privacy-related torts against the subject of the image, than it is about the copyright and commercial re-use? Absent an agreement to the contrary (which may be part of the model release), the subject has no copyright in the artistic work.
Also, is this intended to be construed as a blanket release of rights for all subsequent images featuring the same person/the same set of people/the same photographer/some/all of the preceding? Even if some of those subsequent photos were taken under different circumstances? (And is that vague a release even enforceable in law?)
And how is it established that the release applies to the images that subsequently overwrite it (leaving the original in the history)? (Any user can come along and overwrite: do you imply that only the original uploader can do so under the release?)
Would it be better to include the release in the original, and then crop and re-upload the original to remove the release, so that there's no question that at the moment the photo was taken, the subjects consented? I think, with a re-phrased release statement that covers only that one photo and wholly subtractive derivative works, this could be a straightforward way to simplify model releases. TheFeds 05:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I created it in regards to Commons:Country specific consent requirements to clear for the first two columns. I added the CC-by so the subjects would be aware of what type of license the image could be published under. I didn't intend for them to be releasing their third column Commons:Personality rights which I think would be asking too much. Now that I look at it again it does need better wording to reflect that. The wording shouldn't be that difficult to sort out. I also have User:Canoe1967/Sculptors for image only releases from 2D and 3D creators and File:Photograph of tourists permission form.png to handle self portraits made by someone else.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still not clear about which images the sign would apply to. Just that image? Some derivatives? Other images featuring the same subjects? (And if so, which images?).
Also, by excluding the third column, does that mean that subject acknowledges commercial use of the image may occur, but does not explicitly consent to it or deny permission? (If so, why?) TheFeds 17:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still not clear about which images the sign would apply to. Just that image? Some derivatives? Other images featuring the same subjects? (And if so, which images?).
- The sign is just to confirm consent to take the picture and upload it to commons. This would include derivative works. It would not include commercial use if the subject is identifiable. That is covered by different laws in most countries and requires releasing 'personality rights'. --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I get it. Is the sign is intended to indicate a non-commercial waiver of privacy rights with respect to the image and any derivatives? (And therefore the right of privacy is supposed to be maintained for commercial uses/derivations?) If that's the case, does it imply that the image is reusable commercially, but that the commercial reuser is responsible for clearing privacy rights with the image's subject? And that personality rights are not released, and therefore might have to be cleared as well?
If that's how it's supposed to work, I'm not sure it's even necessary to mention the CC licence. Also, the statement about use (even commercial use) could be read as permission, rather than a statement of fact. TheFeds 23:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I get it. Is the sign is intended to indicate a non-commercial waiver of privacy rights with respect to the image and any derivatives? (And therefore the right of privacy is supposed to be maintained for commercial uses/derivations?) If that's the case, does it imply that the image is reusable commercially, but that the commercial reuser is responsible for clearing privacy rights with the image's subject? And that personality rights are not released, and therefore might have to be cleared as well?
I agree. As soon as the cat goes to sleep I can take another. "The subjects (or legal guardians of the subjects) in this image have given consent to be photographed. However this does not release any personality rights." Would you like to try the wording? Mine is probably off again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
