Ok so I am being a little silly with this title, but hey, I like a good title.

I am thinking through possible threats to my job, though, like slideshare.

Anyway, I’ve been thinking about my uses of flickr for digital storytelling projects. I’ve got a doozy coming up that I will announce in a few days.

I will use flickr images because I want my kids to all use the same pictures and not have to go take them. It’s a time saver and also protects them from having their picture in a story later published and viewed on YouTube.

I am curious, though, about the nature of the creative commons attribution license. If I take a picture of a flower, I own that picture. I can decide to release that picture using this license and everyone is happy.

If I take a picture of a person, however, do I really have the right to release it using this license?

What if I release it and they don’t like that. What if I use that picture for something and properly attribute the photographer but not the person in the photo since I have no idea who he or she is. Can’t that person get upset?

I realize it’s a longshot and I cannot honestly say I am worried about this, but it’s good fodder for my brain these days. What if my students use a picture of a sad lady and the sad lady gets mad that her picture was released without her permission.  Surely I could remove the story or remove that picture from the story, and of course I would do so, but it’s interesting to think about. Well, for me it is.

I would imagine the burden is on the photographer to ensure a signed model’s release for each picture released this way, so I doubt it would come back on me, but I will tell you, this litigious society has got me thinking.

But maybe it’s just me, and maybe I should just relax.