4 ms·

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

by 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

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.