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