4 ms·

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

by 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.

by tjr 12y ago

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.