plasma wallpapers

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:45:34PM +0100, Martin Klapetek wrote:
>    On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Jonathan Riddell <jr at jriddell.org> wrote:
> 
>      On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:20:35PM +0100, Martin Klapetek wrote:
>      >A  A  However do you know how it is with property licenses when used as
>      >A  A  backgrounds?
> 
>      It varies by country, sensible countries make sure that photos of
>      public buildings are not restricted by copyright.A  Both the UK and the
>      US are sensible countries in this regard.
> 
>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama
> 
>    That is not true, for example Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square
>    in London that are not private tourist photos _must_ have a property
>    release before using it commercially. And there are many such buildings
>    or landmarks in US and everywhere else too.

There seems to be some specific byelaws for Trafalgar Square and
 Parliament Square that restrict photography
 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Trafalgar%20Square%20Byelaws%2025Jan2012_1.pdf
in which case sure, just make sure there's no photos of these two
sites in the competition if we want to keep Boris Johnston happy
(personally I'd love to see him get upset).  Same goes for the
Atonium in Brussels or the Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen where
they don't have sensible laws regarding photos of buildings.
US law is weird and mixed but there's no real restrictions and if
wikipedia are happy to put photos of the golden gate bridge then I
trust them to have done the research to know it's fine

>      >A  A  Same goes with children or any person on photos,
>      >A  A  there you need "model release" (ie. the person's signature that
>      his/her
>      >A  A  photo
>      >A  A  can be used for various purposes).
> 
>      Personality rights for people modelling is only a US concept, sensible
>      countries have no such restrictions.
> 
>    That is also not true and it's more complicated. Basically, taking a
>    picture
>    on the public space/street should be safe, but as soon as the person
>    (and especially children) are the main object of the photos, you do need
>    to have a license to use those in a non-private way.

You're mixing several unrelated laws here.  Personality rights in the
US applies to people who make a living from their celebrity.  Privacy
rights in the EU applies to helping protect the little children.
There's some common law concepts in Scotland and elsewhere around
photos of models and celebrities but it's very unlikely to apply to
photos given away under the GPL at no cost and has no bearing on KDE's
licence policy which is based only on the copyright owner.

Jonathan