Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Do not photograph" checkbox in registration
Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
> Quoting John Sullivan (2014-09-05 04:26:36)
>> Luke Faraone <luke@faraone.cc> writes:
>>
>>> On 4 September 2014 13:38, martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net> wrote:
>>>> also sprach Aigars Mahinovs <aigarius@gmail.com> [2014-09-04 12:33 -0700]:
>>>>> On a side note: I am note aware of any legal or privacy problems
>>>>> occuring from uploading public CC/GPL-licensed photos to either
>>>>> Google Plus or Flickr (paid version in both cases)
>>>>
>>>> Do their terms of service not include any form of implicit copyright
>>>> transferral, e.g. what Facebook does? IANAL, but if you upload a
>>>> picture to Facebook, you are giving it to them for whatever their
>>>> use may be. If that use is in violation of the licence on the data,
>>>> then I'd say *you* as the uploader are the one breaching the
>>>> licence.
>>>
>>> http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/05/13/at-flickr-your-photos-are-always-yours/
>>>
>>> The terms do not seem to have materially changed in the interim.
>>>
>>> This appears to be similar to the license given to Facebook at
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/terms.php>:
>>>
>>
>> Those licenses seem incompatible with CC-BY-SA and such (when it comes
>> to photos by not yourself), since they require giving the site a
>> license which permits some proprietary redistribution.
>
> If you mean "those are not strong copyleft licenses" then I agree - and
> am not surprised.
>
> If you mean "those licenses are not suitable for our redistribution"
> then (I personally dislike it but) believe that's not a problem for
> Debian if the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, I assume) is fine
> with it.
I was just highlighting that it doesn't look like you can upload someone
else's CC-BY-SA photos to such services. Agree that it's not relevant
for the case of the photographer (copyright holder) uploading the
photos.
-john
Reply to: