3 ms·

I still find that Flickr's Creative Commons is a handy license for work in Education when I need a picture for work. I kind of wish that more emphasis was place

by baldfat 12y ago

I still find that Flickr's Creative Commons is a handy license for work in Education when I need a picture for work. I kind of wish that more emphasis was placed on Public Domain pictures.

ghaff 12y ago
One of the problems with the Creative Commons photos is that the considerable majority picks NC by default. That may well work for education but, depending upon whose opinion you're listening to, it may prohibit pretty much every other use that isn't purely personal. See, e.g., this case from Germany: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says-creative-commons-non-commercial-licenses-must-be-purely-personal-use.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/germa... I do use Flickr CC licenses in some presentations that are educational rather than product pitches, but I realize this use is probably in a gray area.
- tjr 12y ago
  As a hobbyist photographer on Flickr, I use non-commercial CC mainly to avoid any pictures of people being used for marketing without the person's consent, and to avoid any pictures being used to advertise something that I wouldn't want to help support. I'd happily consider requests from anyone asking to use a picture under a different license than the default non-commercial CC that I picked, but I do realize it's often easier to just find a different picture under the license you want.
  - ghaff 12y ago
    >to avoid any pictures of people being used for marketing without the person's consent Just FYI, someone can't safely do that anyway. That's commercial use (with a different meaning of commercial than we're talking here) and typically requires a model release form for any identifiable subject. That's why stock sites require the submittal of model releases. >to avoid any pictures being used to advertise something that I wouldn't want to help support. That's obviously another matter but that's why NC isn't really a free license because it restricts use in a way that OSI software licenses don't. And it does it in a very unclear way. A lot of folks would argue that a non-profit organization could use an NC photo for advertising. Speaking for myself, it's extremely rare that I would go to the trouble of asking permission to use a photo with a license that doesn't match my intended use; I'll just use something else.
    - tjr 12y ago
      That's commercial use (with a different meaning of commercial than we're talking here) In what way is it different? While I'm sure individual opinions may vary, I get the impression that there are ample people both creating and using Creative Commons-licensed materials that see advertising use as falling under "commercial" use, as defined by Creative Commons: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/Defining_Noncommercial_fullreport.pdf http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/De... So as you said, a model release would be required for advertising use; strictly speaking, a model release would be required on top of a license to use the photo itself (stock photos ostensibly are sold with both the photo license and the model release bundled together as one), but it seems most clear-cut to me to just disallow commercial usage entirely to steer clear of the issue, lest someone erroneously conclude that a commercial license implies no need for an additional model release. A lot of folks would argue that a non-profit organization could use an NC photo for advertising. Maybe so. I'll just use something else. Agreed.
      - ghaff 12y ago
        There's commercial in the sense of "used to help make me money" which is how C/NC are normally distinguished. And there is commercial (e.g. advertising, marketing brochures, etc.) as opposed to editorial use. Which typically requires a model release in addition to an appropriate license for the photo. Frankly, it's really up to the user of the photo to determine that they've cleared appropriate rights. The New York Times (a for-profit corporation, well trying to be anyway) can print any news photo without a model release because that's editorial. However, if they use a CC-NC photo, they would presumably be violating the terms of that license.
neilk 12y ago
Despite what everyone on Tumblr thinks, "public domain" is, for various reasons, not a viable strategy for sharing images. If you want unlimited sharing with no attribution requirements, use Creative Commons Zero. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Unfortunately Flickr doesn't allow that as an option. Now, I know every hacker reading this is going to try to prove how clever they are, and insist that you can make a public domain declaration that works in all jurisdictions, or you can just hack it by using "No known copyright restrictions"... but... no. You can't.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Now, I know every hacker reading this is going to try to prove how clever they are, and insist that you can make a public domain declaration that works in all jurisdictions Or maybe just point out that while that's not possible, the fact that its not possible doesn't make it different than trying to come up with a license that works as intended in all jurisdictions. Or maybe just point out that CC0 is a public domain declaration, with all the problems attendant thereto.
  - baldfat 12y ago
    > CC0 is a public domain declaration TDIL: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ That is exactly what Creative Commons declares CC0 to be.
    - neilk 12y ago
      I think it should have been clear I was referring to simple self-crafted statements like "I dedicate this work to the public domain." or people who think it's legal to republish on Tumblr if you don't claim authorship. CC0 is indeed a public domain dedication but there's pages of legalese behind it.

by baldfat 12y ago

I still find that Flickr's Creative Commons is a handy license for work in Education when I need a picture for work. I kind of wish that more emphasis was placed on Public Domain pictures.

ghaff 12y ago

One of the problems with the Creative Commons photos is that the considerable majority picks NC by default. That may well work for education but, depending upon whose opinion you're listening to, it may prohibit pretty much every other use that isn't purely personal. See, e.g., this case from Germany: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says-creative-commons-non-commercial-licenses-must-be-purely-personal-use.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/germa... I do use Flickr CC licenses in some presentations that are educational rather than product pitches, but I realize this use is probably in a gray area.

tjr 12y ago
As a hobbyist photographer on Flickr, I use non-commercial CC mainly to avoid any pictures of people being used for marketing without the person's consent, and to avoid any pictures being used to advertise something that I wouldn't want to help support. I'd happily consider requests from anyone asking to use a picture under a different license than the default non-commercial CC that I picked, but I do realize it's often easier to just find a different picture under the license you want.
- ghaff 12y ago
  >to avoid any pictures of people being used for marketing without the person's consent Just FYI, someone can't safely do that anyway. That's commercial use (with a different meaning of commercial than we're talking here) and typically requires a model release form for any identifiable subject. That's why stock sites require the submittal of model releases. >to avoid any pictures being used to advertise something that I wouldn't want to help support. That's obviously another matter but that's why NC isn't really a free license because it restricts use in a way that OSI software licenses don't. And it does it in a very unclear way. A lot of folks would argue that a non-profit organization could use an NC photo for advertising. Speaking for myself, it's extremely rare that I would go to the trouble of asking permission to use a photo with a license that doesn't match my intended use; I'll just use something else.
  - tjr 12y ago
    That's commercial use (with a different meaning of commercial than we're talking here) In what way is it different? While I'm sure individual opinions may vary, I get the impression that there are ample people both creating and using Creative Commons-licensed materials that see advertising use as falling under "commercial" use, as defined by Creative Commons: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/Defining_Noncommercial_fullreport.pdf http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/De... So as you said, a model release would be required for advertising use; strictly speaking, a model release would be required on top of a license to use the photo itself (stock photos ostensibly are sold with both the photo license and the model release bundled together as one), but it seems most clear-cut to me to just disallow commercial usage entirely to steer clear of the issue, lest someone erroneously conclude that a commercial license implies no need for an additional model release. A lot of folks would argue that a non-profit organization could use an NC photo for advertising. Maybe so. I'll just use something else. Agreed.
    - ghaff 12y ago
      There's commercial in the sense of "used to help make me money" which is how C/NC are normally distinguished. And there is commercial (e.g. advertising, marketing brochures, etc.) as opposed to editorial use. Which typically requires a model release in addition to an appropriate license for the photo. Frankly, it's really up to the user of the photo to determine that they've cleared appropriate rights. The New York Times (a for-profit corporation, well trying to be anyway) can print any news photo without a model release because that's editorial. However, if they use a CC-NC photo, they would presumably be violating the terms of that license.

neilk 12y ago

Despite what everyone on Tumblr thinks, "public domain" is, for various reasons, not a viable strategy for sharing images. If you want unlimited sharing with no attribution requirements, use Creative Commons Zero. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Unfortunately Flickr doesn't allow that as an option. Now, I know every hacker reading this is going to try to prove how clever they are, and insist that you can make a public domain declaration that works in all jurisdictions, or you can just hack it by using "No known copyright restrictions"... but... no. You can't.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Now, I know every hacker reading this is going to try to prove how clever they are, and insist that you can make a public domain declaration that works in all jurisdictions Or maybe just point out that while that's not possible, the fact that its not possible doesn't make it different than trying to come up with a license that works as intended in all jurisdictions. Or maybe just point out that CC0 is a public domain declaration, with all the problems attendant thereto.
- baldfat 12y ago
  > CC0 is a public domain declaration TDIL: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ That is exactly what Creative Commons declares CC0 to be.
  - neilk 12y ago
    I think it should have been clear I was referring to simple self-crafted statements like "I dedicate this work to the public domain." or people who think it's legal to republish on Tumblr if you don't claim authorship. CC0 is indeed a public domain dedication but there's pages of legalese behind it.