I am a young writer and I need free photos for the cover of my erotic book.

Can I use the photos of flickr under this licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ for my erotic book?

Or are there some restrictions for erotic purpose?

closed as off-topic by xiota, Caleb, flolilolilo, Blrfl, scottbb Nov 9 at 0:31

  • This question does not appear to be about photography within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Seems like a better fix for law.stackexchange.com to me. Anyhow, have you read the legal code? creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode. To me, it would sound okay - but I am not a lawyer, so take this with multiple grains of salt. – flolilolilo Nov 8 at 9:27
  • 1
    Can you please clarify if we talk about porn or erotic. – Romeo Ninov Nov 8 at 9:51
  • 1
    Also, in case someone not authorized to license the photo as CC did so anyway, it is unlikely that you can insist on the license :) – rackandboneman Nov 8 at 9:54
  • @RomeoNinov it's an erotic book like 50 shades of grey. I only need a photo for the cover. – xRobot Nov 8 at 12:00
  • 3
    vtc b/c 1. Cross posted. 2. Questions about licensing details for particular photos should be directed to the copyright owners. 3. OP is using this Q as a substitute for consulting a lawyer. – xiota Nov 8 at 19:44

This is not legal advice!

You can use images under CC BY 2.0 license for your (commercial) purpose. But you should be aware of the fact that if person(s) on the photo is/are recognizable you will need model release to be able to use it commercially. Also you need to add in to the notes appropriate credit to the author and link to CC license.

Nevertheless will be wise to contact lawyer and discuss with him/her the case.

  • The face is not showed in the photo but if I link the author, then people can see who is the subject of the photo. I contacted the author but he doesn't reply me :( – xRobot Nov 8 at 11:58
  • 1
    @xRobot, its not only the face. Anything which can lead to recognize the person(s) like tattoo, scar, etc will make mandatory the model release. – Romeo Ninov Nov 8 at 13:02
  • 1
    Even releases aren't bulletproof, they are only a partial protection against litigation. Subjects can (and have) argued to overturn releases in court to prevent use of their likenesses in contexts they strongly disagree with. – James Snell Nov 8 at 21:00

The following is for entertainment purposes only. If you have any serious legal concerns, consult a lawyer.

Contracts and licenses are a mechanism for preventing disputes from occurring and escalating to the courts by making expectations explicit. Since you have correctly discerned that the photographer and model may not have considered erotica as a potential use of the photos, you should contact the copyright owners, even if the license appears to implicitly permit you to use the photo. Any non-response to your queries should be considered equivalent to refusal to allow you to use the photos. You should consider using a different photo.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.