[jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-507) What category is the pexels license?

["Henri Yandell (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-507?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17024945#comment-17024945 ] 

Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-507:
-------------------------------------

I can't believe how long it took me to realize that 'bad light' meant showing someone in a negative way instead of saying that photos couldn't have bad lighting.

This seems worse than LEGAL-479 to me. Numbering the points:


 - 1. Identifiable people may not appear in a bad light or in a way that is offensive.
 - 2. Don't sell unaltered copies of a photo, e.g. don't sell it as a stock photo, poster, print or on a physical product without adding any value.
 - 3. Don't imply endorsement of your product by people or brands on the image.
 - 4. Don't redistribute or sell the photos on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms.


#1 is akin to #3 in 479. I think the solution here for both cases is: "Do not use identifiable people".
#2 is the same as #2 in 479. Its language of 'add value' always makes me wonder if this type of thing is well understood in legal systems. Do they have a simple math for working out that the additional content added value. 
#3 is akin to #4 in 479. This one doesn't concern me - the same type of language is in our ASL 1.1.
#4 is akin to #1 in 479. I think it's worse language wise as it assumes those platforms don't offer things other than photo/wallpaper products (like web servers for example).

End of the day, I think this is a duplicate of LEGAL-479. The licenses clash with Apache 2.0, but many of their uses are unlikely to be core to our products. As imagery in presentations under Apache 2.0 contributed to projects, or on a site, or in documentation, it seems very unlikely that any of the four points listed would lead to one of our users having problems, provided they are clearly marked. The one that worries me the most is documentation included in a binary/source tarball. That could lead to a lot of compliance flags.

> What category is the pexels license?
> ------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-507
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-507
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Justin Mclean
>            Priority: Major
>
> As LEGAL-479 hasn't been resolved and is holding up a release I went looking for other images that could be used. One place I found is: https://www.pexels.com/
> Their license is simple https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/
> -All photos on Pexels are free to use.
> - Attribution is not required. Giving credit to the photographer or Pexels is not necessary but always appreciated.
> - You can modify the photos. Be creative and edit the photos as you like.
> However is you scroll down you'll see (similar to  LEGAL-479) you can't:
> - Identifiable people may not appear in a bad light or in a way that is offensive.
> - Don't sell unaltered copies of a photo, e.g. don't sell it as a stock photo, poster, print or on a physical product without adding any value.
> - Don't imply endorsement of your product by people or brands on the image.
> - Don't redistribute or sell the photos on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms.
> Projects are very unlikely to do any of the above and are not rights about copyright but other rights and some in general apply to all photos no matter what license they are under, including CC0 licensed images.(Just like LEGAL-479 I would also point out)
> Can images with the pexels license be used in an ASF release? In particular we want to use these for the upcoming ApacheCon slide template generator (which will be a maven archetype).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org