On 2015-03-02 12:41, M.Chesterman wrote:
> On 02/03/15 17:26, Peter Reed wrote:
>> 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 ;-)
>>
> I agree. It's totally legit. You can choose who you want to reuse you
> work by writing your own licence with causes.
>
> But a question, to avoid this could you just use a "Share Alike
> licence" like BY-SA
> or the Free Art licence.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Art_License
>
> That seems unclear to me and I couldn't find any reference on the
> links.
This is just a rabbit hole now
So I googled how does CC alter moral rights (in the copyright sense)
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_Creative_Commons_licenses_affect_my_moral_rights.2C_if_at_all.3F
So this takes us to the license itself
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
and the bit at the bottom "The license may not give you all of the
permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights
such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the
material."
Moral rights is a clickable link, which takes you off to
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees
Which is a bit of an addendum
I would suggest https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ is the
better fit, as ND gives you a greater protection of moral rights (in a
CDPA 1988 sense) if you wish to protect the picture from potentially
unethical / immoral use.
|