4 ms·

The article states the videos used a Creative Commons license that allowed for commercial use. It is an extremely liberal license that does not state "free for

The article states the videos used a Creative Commons license that allowed for commercial use. It is an extremely liberal license that does not state "free for commercial use except for when used with facial recognition."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
quietbritishjim 6y ago
But that Creative Commons licence was issued from the copyright holder of those videos, not the people in them. The people in those videos may not even have agreed to appear in the video if they were in a public place (the relevant legal term, at least here in the UK, is "reasonable expectation of privacy"). So if Kaggle requires people in the videos to consent taking part then that consent cannot be inferred from that licence. What's more, if that consent is not legally required (there's a heavy "if" in this sentence, IANAL so I do pretend to know whether it's required e.g. under GDPR, but let's assume for a moment that it's not) then Kaggle are still perfectly at rights to ask for that permission to qualify for their competition. After all, it's their competition, and it's totally reasonable for them to set an ethical criteria that's even higher than legally required.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  You're right, I missed that part of their rules. Looks like they did probably break them. "A. If any part of the submission documentation depicts, identifies, or includes any person that is not an individual participant or Team member, you must have all permissions and rights from the individual depicted, identified, or included and you agree to provide Competition Sponsor and PAI with written confirmation of those permissions and rights upon request."
KingOfCoders 6y ago
For people in a video you need a model release from them. This is also a mistake many people make, they use Creative Commons licenses and think they are safe. A picture or a video needs model releases for the people in the picture (several exemptions apply).
- gman83 6y ago
  If that is true then basically all the photographs in Wikipedia are illegal since the only check they do is for copyright not for model release. Pretty sure that's not a legal requirement.
  - danbruc 6y ago
    Of which photos are you thinking? It most certainly varies from country to country but public figures or random people captured when taking a picture of a landscape or a building are at least in some countries not subject to such rules.
  - KingOfCoders 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_... See the other comment for some of the exceptions.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

quietbritishjim 6y ago

But that Creative Commons licence was issued from the copyright holder of those videos, not the people in them. The people in those videos may not even have agreed to appear in the video if they were in a public place (the relevant legal term, at least here in the UK, is "reasonable expectation of privacy"). So if Kaggle requires people in the videos to consent taking part then that consent cannot be inferred from that licence. What's more, if that consent is not legally required (there's a heavy "if" in this sentence, IANAL so I do pretend to know whether it's required e.g. under GDPR, but let's assume for a moment that it's not) then Kaggle are still perfectly at rights to ask for that permission to qualify for their competition. After all, it's their competition, and it's totally reasonable for them to set an ethical criteria that's even higher than legally required.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
You're right, I missed that part of their rules. Looks like they did probably break them. "A. If any part of the submission documentation depicts, identifies, or includes any person that is not an individual participant or Team member, you must have all permissions and rights from the individual depicted, identified, or included and you agree to provide Competition Sponsor and PAI with written confirmation of those permissions and rights upon request."

KingOfCoders 6y ago

For people in a video you need a model release from them. This is also a mistake many people make, they use Creative Commons licenses and think they are safe. A picture or a video needs model releases for the people in the picture (several exemptions apply).

gman83 6y ago
If that is true then basically all the photographs in Wikipedia are illegal since the only check they do is for copyright not for model release. Pretty sure that's not a legal requirement.
- danbruc 6y ago
  Of which photos are you thinking? It most certainly varies from country to country but public figures or random people captured when taking a picture of a landscape or a building are at least in some countries not subject to such rules.
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_... See the other comment for some of the exceptions.