<p dir="ltr">thanks for the information. thats the reason that the plasma team should find the winner and not the community via rating.</p>
<p dir="ltr">cheers <br>
Andreas</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Am 12.03.2015 13:46 schrieb "Martin Klapetek" <<a href="mailto:martin.klapetek@gmail.com">martin.klapetek@gmail.com</a>>:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Jonathan Riddell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jr@jriddell.org" target="_blank">jr@jriddell.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:20:35PM +0100, Martin Klapetek wrote:<br>
> However do you know how it is with property licenses when used as<br>
> backgrounds?<br>
<br>
</span>It varies by country, sensible countries make sure that photos of<br>
public buildings are not restricted by copyright. Both the UK and the<br>
US are sensible countries in this regard.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama</a></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is not true, for example Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square</div><div>in London that are not private tourist photos _must_ have a property</div><div>release before using it commercially. And there are many such buildings</div><div>or landmarks in US and everywhere else too.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>
> Same goes with children or any person on photos,<br>
> there you need "model release" (ie. the person's signature that his/her<br>
> photo<br>
> can be used for various purposes).<br>
<br>
</span>Personality rights for people modelling is only a US concept, sensible<br>
countries have no such restrictions.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is also not true and it's more complicated. Basically, taking a picture</div><div>on the public space/street should be safe, but as soon as the person</div><div>(and especially children) are the main object of the photos, you do need</div><div>to have a license to use those in a non-private way.</div><div><br></div><div>All I'm saying is, better stay safe (licensing Golden Gate Bridge for</div><div>non-private use is 2000$, getting sued could be very very very</div><div>expensive).</div></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div>-- <br><div><div><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer</span></div></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div>