Today I got a new toy from Ross, a Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens. He was one of my first victims.
Inspired by Luis i’ve made all my photos CC BY-SA-NC. It seems like the next logical step since the main rreason I take photos and upload them to Flickr is to share with everyone else.
How can you share a picture of someone else without the explicit permission of that person? Putting the CC tag on the pictures is not going to work without that permission.
Best lens ever! 🙂
@Sven:
Interesting point. In many countries the right to privacy for the subject of a photograph is non-existant. Since I was the individual who took the photographs I hold the copyright for said photographs and can license them as I see fit.
If Ross had objected to my taking this photograph and putting it on my blog I would have taken it down. However I think he’s flattered.
I want one of those!
Too bad the lens has that bad bokeh, but the lens is still great for the price. If you’re buying a 50mm from Canon rather than getting one from someone, I’d recommend to get the 50/1.4 instead.
As always with creative commons licensing, I have to ask: why NC? Why not BY-SA, or GPL?
At first I assumed that your new toy was Ross.
@Anonymous: perhaps he doesn’t want Virgin Mobile to use his photos in their advertising campaigns:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html
@anonymous: GPL? it’s unclear to me how a photo is a program *or* a library; can I invoke it from the terminal? or have an API I can use from another application?
@davyd: yes, ross is our homeboy.
@Remm: The f/1.8 has the advantage of being approximately eleven thousand times cheaper than the f/1.4. It’s still a hell of fun lens.
@Lucas: It’s like €80! Do it!
I am not a lawyer but I don’t believe that your statement is true. There are privacy laws in almost all countries and they typically grant you a right on your own image. As a photographer you may have the right to take the photograph, but you don’t have the right to publish it or license it so that others can publish it. That clearly violates the privacy of the person who is subject of your photograph.
@Sven: No, not really. Privacy laws only really cover actual intrusions of your _privacy_ (e.g. if someone breaks into your house or uses a 1200mm lens to shoot pictures of you through the window). If you’re in a (semi)public place, then in most countries, you have no implied right to privacy, and the only recourse you have is when it gets to harassment (public), or when you get thrown out (semi-public).