Re:Scraping Tinder selfies to make a dataset for AI experiments
by danso on Saturday April 29, 2017 @05:45PM
(#14228941)
I didn't mean to imply that the CC licensing was at fault, though IIRC the girl and her family did originally include the CC Corporation as a defendant [0] before dropping them from the suit. I was merely stating the fact that just because the photographer has made their photo freely available under CC does not mean the subject has given consent for their image to be commercially used. Virgin Mobile screwed up into thinking that's what CC meant.
[0] http://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/chang-v-virgin-mobile-creat...
Re:Scraping Tinder selfies to make a dataset for AI experiments
by ghaff on Saturday April 29, 2017 @05:52PM
(#14228978)
Absolutely right. I actually wrote about this at the time. [1] That CC has commercial/non-commercial variants probably add further to the confusion even if they didn't play into this case. As does the fact that the colloquial meaning of commercial is different from the meaning of commercial that's relevant to publicity rights.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/more-commercial-creative-common... (Video autoplay, grr.)
The issue in that case was (IANAL) nothing to do with the CC licensing but with the fact that the photo was used for a commercial (i.e. marketing/advertising) purpose. Those require a model release form, hence the requirement by microstock sites for model releases.
Virgin Mobile messed up in that they used a photo for a marketing campaign that didn't have a model release form either directly or through an agency that had vetted it.
Editorial use in the US at least doesn't require this even though it's commercial use in the sense that a for-profit entity is using the photo to illustrate a story.