[License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

Actually, you can limit the reuse of the pictures.  For my kid pics I mark them CC-BY-NC-ND.  If there are other kids in the pics I give their parents CC-BY-SA-NC so they can crop my kids out and use it a family photobook, christmas card, etc. which is precluded by the ND option if they want to give the photobook or card to grandma.  Under ND they can repost the original photo to Flickr but not remix, transform or build upon it.

If members (or the site) watermarks the photos, then CC-BY-NC-ND option may be good enough for your needs.   You could batch watermark photos uploaded to your site and serve the watermarked version to non-members with a CC-BY-NC-ND license (or not at all) and the original version to members with a less restrictive CC license.

You cannot AFAIK attach any additional restrictions as CC notes in the human readable license text:

  *   No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/#> that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

So dual licensing based on membership status may work for you as a solution.  The caveat is if a member reposts those photos on Flickr then anyone that gets it from there has that less restrictive CC license.

Depending on the goals of the organization CC-BY-SA-NC may or may not be a better default choice over plain CC-BY-SA.  As a parent I don't want my kids to end up in an ad campaign without my express permission.  I also don't want to get in trouble with other parents if their kids are in my photo.  If a non-profit or company wants to use the photo they can ask for permission.

IANAL, etc.

Regards,

Nigel

From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org>> on behalf of Maarten Zeinstra <mz at kl.nl<mailto:mz at kl.nl>>
Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss at opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org>>
Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 9:22 AM
To: License Discuss <license-discuss at opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content

Maarten Zeinstra from Creative Commons Netherlands here.

You would have no problems limiting access to those files. However you have to understand that you cannot limit reuse of those files if they are licensed using a Creative Commons license. If a member of your community decided to download those images and post them on Flickr or another platform it would be impossible to use copyright arguments to stop them.

A Creative Commons license gives permission for everyone in the world to use the work under the conditions of the license. The bare minimum of these conditions is that you give attribution, but they all allow for non-commercial distribution (e.g. placing them on Flickr).

if you are looking for a more local forum to discuss this I recommend contacting CC NZ: http://creativecommons.org.nz/

Regards,

Maarten Zeinstra

--
Kennisland | www.kl.nl<http://www.kl.nl> | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra

On 20 Oct 2016, at 14:09, Stephen Paul Weber <singpolyma at singpolyma.net<mailto:singpolyma at singpolyma.net>> wrote:

Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the general license?

One is copyright, one is privacy/visibility. Not even related, so there should be no conflict.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at opensource.org<mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org>
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20161020/1614ebe5/attachment.html>