On 7/9/2012 7:52 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
I do believe that Adam's work is enough for him to have some credit for it. If any of us edit an image, we do receive the credit (there is even a template for it: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Retouched_picture). So, why so much trouble to credit him? Can't we do like we do with multiple licensed pictures (for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redwikiheart-10,8M-heartonly.png )?
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.
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.
- Cary