- "Although I retain copyright on my original works I am hereby releasing all permissions to publish photographs of my works."
- "Although I retain copyright on my work entitled Cubic's Rube (1998), I am hereby releasing all permissions to publish photographs this work."
- "Although I retain copyright on my original works I am hereby releasing all permissions to publish photographs of my works with the exception of Cubic's Rube (1998)"
- "Although I retain copyright on my original works I am hereby releasing all permissions to publish photographs of my works created before 2002."
Let me start by saying I am a big fan of blanket permission. I have a friend who gets a number of photos that are relevant for my interests, and he has provided blanket permission for any images he uploads to to his Facebook page. That said, or perhaps because I had to address it, I can see some potential issues with blanket permissions.
Someone sent to OTRS a blanket permission for any images ever uploaded in the past or in the future. I don't think this should be allowed. While I don't want anyone ever retroactively taking back permission, they should always be able to say, "as of this date,no more permission for anything uploaded (created) after today."
Someone attempted to provide broad permission for any image uploaded to www.somelocation.com This has more than one problem. How do we know who has access to upload images? It cannot be the case that if someone else uploads images to that site, they are covered by the permission. Second, what if the location is sold. The permission cannot possibly be transferable. Third, what if the person plans to use the site for uploads of free images, but years form now forgets, and uploads something that shouldn't be deemed as free. We can't simply say "Too bad" especially if it isn't theirs.
How do we deal with an image that was on the site one day, but now gone? Do we need a mechanism to capture screen shots at the time of licensing, or something else?
Upload of material not belonging to them
What if they provide permission for anything uploaded to some location, then they upload a friends photo. That shouldn't be covered, but how do we handle this?
I fully understand that a broad coverage of a sculptor, covering anything they may have created, may not have all of these issues. but I thought I would identify some of the issue I considered when thinking about broad based permissions.--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think most of your concerns are issues that deal with the rights of the photographers and not the sculptors. If sculptors wish to provide images from websites then we can use the same procedure as User:FlickreviewR, admin verification, or OTRS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I added a clause to Michelangelo's sample:
- "Permissions for this sculptor may be revoked at anytime. This will not affect the licenses of images that are already licensed. It will affect any images uploaded after the OTRS ticket is revoked. Check the sculptor's page for status of their image licensing before uploading."
- This may help in case sculptors wish to change their minds at any time. We could turn the ticket on, upload the images they have approved and then revoke it after they are satisfied with the images that are hosted here. We may also wish to give them the right to have any lame images of their works deleted. We could just put a 'speedy:request by sculptor' tag on for them if they ask us to. This way we would have only good images of their works and not fill the servers with lame ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)