On 9 July 2012 14:37, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 July 2012 14:08, Béria Lima <
berialima@gmail.com> wrote:
> Talking about that: What happened to the case? Someone has any info about
> it?
claim is invalid, come on if you think you're hard enough", the images
are still up, and NPG and WMF are still on speaking terms. NPG have
occasionally made quiet noises asserting the copyright, but are
observably *extremely reluctant* to actually push their big noisy
legal threat one millimetre further.
This is what I mean when I say that the claim of such copyrights
existing is really extremely insubstantial, and that if Adam wishes to
make such a claim stick he really would have to push it all the way
through the courts, and that shouting abuse at people on a mailing
list really just doesn't cut it.
It was always my understanding that the issue in that case was the lack of creative work required in the reproduction; i.e. a straight on photo of a 2D medium. (I think they also did some touching up?? but nothing major).
Comparatively, some of Adam's work exhibits a much greater level of skill and creativity in reconstructing damaged images.
I'd say that the NPG's inability to demonstrate requisite creativity to claim "sweat of the brow" doesn't outright undermine Adam's situation.
Regardless; why are we being such dicks? As diametrically opposed to copyright as some of us are, it genuinely doesn't hurt anyone for those works to be tagged CC-BY-SA. They can still be reused widely, Adam gets credit for his hard work, and everyone is happy.
This smacks of cutting off our noses to spite our faces, all on principle...
It also undermines many of our strong points about copyright laws/reform.
Tom