That linked discussion is a pretty common copyright pitfall, and not only on Wikipedia: people often assume that they own the copyright on photographs they paid

That linked discussion is a pretty common copyright pitfall, and not only on Wikipedia: people often assume that they own the copyright on photographs they paid a photographer to take of themselves, but this is often not the case. It depends on the jurisdiction and the agreed to license (if any), but often they aren't automatically considered a work-for-hire. A very common arrangement is that the photographer retains copyright, and the subject gets only a right to use the photographs, not copyright ownership. Therefore the subject can't release the photograph under a CC license, because they aren't the copyright holder. In some cases the subject/purchaser has bought only noncommercial rights, not commercial-use rights (as in this case, where the photographer retained commercial-use rights, which he subsequently sold to Getty Images). In very traditional arrangements the subject doesn't even have reproduction rights: they have to order more prints from the photographer if they want more copies. All they own in that case is the physical copies they've bought from the photographer! The short of it is: if you want to own the copyright on photos you pay someone to take, make sure you get a copyright assignment in writing. It is getting more common for photographers to agree to do that. Incidentally this is good practice for software contract work as well: the contract should clearly specify who owns the copyright on any software produced.