Most of what you propose is covered by creative commons. Sadly, in practice, CC is a shitty deal for photography in general.
Why?
These rants cover the issues pretty well
http://thispicturesucks.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/creative-co...
http://thispicturesucks.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/creative-co...
Re:UK Government passes “Instagram Act”
by mcintyre1994 on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:51AM
(#5625287)
I guess I was simplifying the issue too much. It could work with adjustments, but I think one of them might be a license modifier for "but contact me first", and due to the reasons you've presented, maybe that should even be a default. That doesn't really remove the friction we have now, and is probably too restrictive.
We need something more granular that people can use, and I'm not at all convinced that exists. Hmm.
> a license modifier for "but contact me first", and due to the reasons you've presented, maybe that should even be a default
now it's the same as "all rights reserved. [email protected]", and it is the current default.
Couldn't the pool article and the nazi newsletter be considered derivative works? If so one could use a ND clause for the license.
if they drew her a mustache or painted the sperm, then it would be derivative.
Re:UK Government passes “Instagram Act”
by AlexHamilton on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:21AM
(#5625402)
Correct - it's not a derivative showing it alongside an article. Derivative refers to making a change to the work itself to create a new work.
Make everything on the web available by default for personal use, but not commercial use. Then have 2 licenses: No, this can't be used for personal use (eg Netflix) and Yes, this can be used for commercial use too. Both should have a modifier for Source must be attributed. Put the creator in control and get out the way. Of course we should allow more fine-grained licenses like we see for source code etc, but the two simple licenses should cover most use cases I think.