A company is asking for my photos on a Creative Commons 4.0 licenses, I don't agree with all the terms, what can I do?

Question

I asked this question elsewhere but thought I'd also post it here.

I recently went to a ticketed event on a press pass - I saw they had them available and asked if I could have one as I have a travel blog and a photography website. Initially they agreed but asked that I give them permission to use the photos with credit. This is was a very big event and I was totally fine with that and still am.

Yesterday they emailed all the participating photographers and asked for the photos under a Creative Commons 4.0 license which says they can use (including edit) it with attribution (which I am totally fine about) but also that they are free to re-distribute it. This I am not fine with.

Here is a link to the creative commons 4.0 license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Seeing as though they already agreed to let me have 2 free press passes (one for me and one for a companion) I feel bad not giving them any photos but I do not feel fine with them saying they are allowed to redistribute it. The Creative commons website even says the licensor ie the photographer cannot revoke the rights once they give them out. This sounds like a perfect recipe for stolen images.

Yes, I thought about the possibility that they want the right to redistribute it because they might be "distributing" it to printers or other 3rd party organisations to promote their event, but, as far as I am concerned now and always, redistribution, especially under the CC 4.0 license, grants the recipient the same rights to redistribute, edit, etc etc whereas I consider the right to "use" an image already, and has to, involve/s the necessity of providing it to say a printer if it needs to be printed, (but NOT giving the printer to right to use the image on say their marketing material). (Otherwise, this would be like going to a hospital for treatment but not letting the staff touch you - treatment involves touching, it's a given.) The way I understand the CC 4.0 license is like this: giving someone the right to use something is like lending a car to a friend and allowing them to drive it and do all the usual things that come with driving it, such as using it to pick up a passenger, whereas giving them the CC 4.0 rights would be like letting them loan the car out again and letting that third person have the same rights to loan it out again and again etc etc, which is not something I want.

What can I do without offending them and seeming like I just got free entry for nothing? Mind you I did take some good images that I was hoping they'd publish on their website and printed material for the same event next year but if they want to be free to redistribute it then I have to reconsider.

On a side note: what does the Creative commons do exactly? I don't get how someone can just set up a website/organisation that lets people license out things they have no rights or jurisdiction over. It's not like where a government of a country issues drivers licenses to allow holders to drive in areas of their jurisdiction ie THEIR country. With the same logic as the CC licenses, I could also set up an organisation that gives people rights to do things I have no jurisdiction over, say, a badge that says it grants the bearer the right to take whatever they want from any store while wearing said badge.

I believe that you don't understand the license. Anyone they give the image to has to adhere to the license. — Mattman944, Sep 10 '22 at 22:19
What CC "level"? CC-BY-NC-ND is fairly restrictive about what they can do. — xenoid, Sep 10 '22 at 23:30
Did they supply a request for the CC 4.0 license before the event? Or only after the event? Was there any printed agreement/contract you signed at the time you were issued press credentials? — Michael C, Sep 11 '22 at 07:26
What country are you in? Was the event also in the same jurisdiction? Where is the organization who put on the event based? — Michael C, Sep 11 '22 at 07:26
@MichaelC The CC request came after the event was over and everything was in the Netherlands. — I have many questions, Sep 12 '22 at 14:46
@Mattman944 I understand it, thank you. The part I have issue with is the part that allows everyone to redistribute it to another person who in turn can redistribute it to another person and so on. Even if distribution is not the same as licensing, it's still not something I want happening. — I have many questions, Sep 12 '22 at 14:49

score 3 · Accepted Answer · answered Sep 11 '22 at 13:39

The user/licensee needs the right to distribute the image if it is to be of any use to them. The term "distribute" here means to make public/share; not to relicense the work.

The way the creative commons license works is that you choose a license that you assign to your work. That license applies to everyone else... it is "common" to all other potential "creative" users. Therefore third party users do not need to license the work from them, because you have already released it. You can also choose what limitations are applied to the CC license.

The creative commons organization doesn't actually "do" anything... they have simply set some agreed upon terms/terminology so that others understand (and agree) with your intentions.

The least restrictive is CC0- which is a waiver of all rights and places the image into "public domain." It's your image and you can do that if you want.

The next least restrictive is CC BY- which is what they are asking for; but you do not have to give them that. This restriction only means they agree to give you credit as the original author.

Other restrictions that can be applied are:

NC- Non-commercial; the modified work cannot be relicensed for profit
SA- Share Alike; the modified work must be shared under the same terms
ND- No-dervivatives; the work cannot be distributed (made public) in modified form...

You could offer to assign the CC BY-ND-NC 4.0 license to the work, which is the most restrictive. But you simultaneously give that license to all others; you do not give that license to just them as a secondary user. **If instead you want an exclusive license agreement with just them, you would write that out in a contract and not use the creative commons license approach...

Note that none of these restrictions prevent someone from using your image in some manner to create an entirely new work w/o any permission from you; that falls under "fair use"/"fair dealings" exceptions to copyright. It only applies to copies of the original, and modified copies of the original (derivative copies/works)... which both fall under copyright protection (US/UK/EU/etc).

I am not aware of any country where you cannot freely assign a CC license to your work (i.e. wave some/all of your copyrights), or where what I have written doesn't hold true (in essence/effect)... but it is possible.

** it is possible to not assign the CC license to the work in general and agree to those terms in an individual contract, and you could probably use the CC notation in that contract for the sake of simplicity (i.e. license it to them under CC 4.0); but it makes little sense and could be counter productive/confusing.

A company is asking for my photos on a Creative Commons 4.0 licenses, I don't agree with all the terms, what can I do?

1 Answers1