On 8 July 2012 15:31, Adam Cuerden <cuerden(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Commons' argument is
that a database of match
schedules is, without any test of this argument in the courts, legally
equivalent to a 8 to 50 hour restoration job on an artwork, which may
include reconstructing missing parts of the image.
...Seriously.
That's your final word on the subject?
It is not intended as a value judgement. The law may change at any
time, but that's the way UK law stands at the moment. If you release
your work, you can ask for attribution as the restorer, and I suspect
most serious re-users would respect that attribution, but it is not
protected by law.
"Sweat of the brow" is a contentious area of regular discussion, so I
have no doubt that others have opinions that vary from mine. I'm not
pretending to speak of behalf of "Commons", this is just my
understanding from past cases. You might try raising a specific
example at <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright>
to see how your desired attribution can be best expressed.
Thanks,
Fae