As far as i know, the 'publicity rights' are not owned by her. I guess
she is talking about personality rights. These differ from country to
country. We probably need an expert on this (maybe Mike Godwin?), but
i have the feeling that when you use a photograph of somebody, taken
at a public event and publish it without 'exploiting the subject'
(e.g. use her image to sell cans of soda) you wouldn't have a problem.
Maybe the current situation is fine as it is: we have another (freely
licensed) photograph which is better than the previous one, and the
old one is still in Commons, might it be needed in the future.
-- Hay / Husky
On Feb 18, 2008 9:36 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Padraic Ryan
Apparently, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum objects to usage of a
CC-licensed photo of her found on Flickr, and claims, at least via a
University of Chicago staffer, that this photo violates her "right of
publicity". While this isn't a pressing issue, since the Flickr photo has
been removed from her Wikipedia entry (for now), and thus I doubt we will
her any more from her. The photo in question does still exist on Commons,
though, so I'm curious what we are supposed to do about this kind of claim?
Broadly speaking consider them on their merits. An unedited photo
taken at a public event with an accurate caption used in the context
of an article about the person would I suspect be hard to challenge
but there are other situations that would be more problematical.
Commons-l mailing list