On 9 July 2012 20:56, Cary Bass <bastique.ml(a)bastique.com> wrote:
I don't at all dispute that. I think that Commons
should put some sort of
credit on it, and likewise I see a strong argument for creating a reuse
license on such images. I think Adam should be credited for his work and
effort should be made as to seeing how that can be enforced.
Absolutely, and it would be better if reusers credited restorers,
because that gives the correct provenance of an image. Adam absolutely
should be credited.
However, using a copyright license for reuse is not
the way to do that.
"Sweat of the brow" on its own cannot be legitimately defined as engendering
a new creation. A restoration of an old creation is not a new creation. The
better you restore it, the more like the original creation it is. Therefore
a copyright claim on such a work is unenforceable, and makes Commons look
like idiots.
And liars. For sweat of the brow to stick in such cases in the UK,
someone has to win a case.
- d.