[Foundation-l] License that cannot be used in advertisements

Wed Jul 6 15:25:01 UTC 2005

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> GerardM wrote:
> 
>> There are plenty of lovely pictures of this event. The only
>> restriction is in the use of the photos. The pictures can be used for
>> practically any use except for the fact that they may not be used in
>> advertisements. So, it is not allowed to advertise for baby-formula
>> and show a picture of little princess Alexia.
>>
> Strictly speaking that restriction would be contrary to GFDL.

I don't think this is a problem, actually.  I can only speak about US
law and especially California law, which I looked into a few years back.

If I take a photo of Tiger Woods and release it under the GNU FDL, this
does not imply that I am warranting that reusers can use the picture in
advertising.  Indeed, they cannot.  Tiger Woods owns the rights to the
use of his image in an advertising context, and of course he makes a lot
of money from this as a global celebrity.

This is *not* a problem with the GNU FDL.

Remember this: the GNU FDL does not guarantee any _special_ rights to
reusers, it merely is a grant of _some_ of the rights granted to the
copyright holder under copyright law.

If you read the text of the GNU FDL carefully, it is quite clear on this
point.

> I doubt it.  Tracing and evaluating these usages, and determining what
> is advertizing is probably more than anyone wants to do.  Allowing our
> material to be used in any context saves a lot of problems.

But the disallowing here is not affected by the GNU FDL.

> Is this a matter of copyright or of the law about the Royal Family? 
> What would be the status of an unofficial picture taken through a
> papparazo's telephoto lens if he chose to realease that picture under GFDL?

I think this is exactly the right question to ask.  In general, one
can't use photos of people for advertising without their explicit
permission, and this is quite a different matter from copyright law.

--Jimbo