Sorry for my lack of understanding here, but the fact the rights holder didn't choose the commercial license, presumably consciously, authorises KK to put the image on a mug and sell it, regardless of what it depicts? Shouldn't the absence of the commercial clause authorise use for commercial purposes?
I've seen Suits - Harvey Specter would be all over this ;-)
> On 2 Mar 2015, at 16:56, Suzanne Hardy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I think this is a really interesting question.....
>
> In the case of Koppie Koppie I think they should have been in touch with the rights holder to ensure that they had explicit consent to use these images of children on their mugs, as this clearly does not constitute personal use.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Suzanne Hardy
> Senior Project Officer
> Learning and Teaching Development Service (LTDS)
> Room 2.70 Bedson Building
> Newcastle University
> Newcastle upon Tyne
> NE1 7RU
>
> Tel: 0191 208 3264
> http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
> mobile: 07790 905657
> skype: glitt3rgirl
>
> The Enterprise Shed: Making Ideas Happen starts 30 March
> www.futurelearn.com/courses/enterprise-shed
>
> Hadrian's Wall: Life on the Roman Frontier
> www.futurelearn.com/courses/hadrians-wall
>
> Ageing Well: Falls
> www.futurelearn.com/courses/falls
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 2 Mar 2015, at 16:51, Pat (Pgogy) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Does the cc licensing revoke the personal use?
|