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?
-Adam
On 8 July 2012 15:31, Adam Cuerden cuerden@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
Well, I suppose I should thank you for letting me know before you downloaded my works. All my things are now not available for download in their full-size versions, until this is sorted. (and have told people exactly why: http://adamcuerden.deviantart.com/art/Oscar-Wilde-s-The-Duchess-of-Padua-res...) If, at some point in the future, you decide people actually deserve credit for their work, do let me know.
-Adam.
On 8 July 2012 15:46, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I suppose I should thank you for letting me know before you downloaded my works. All my things are now not available for download in their full-size versions, until this is sorted. (and have told people exactly why: http://adamcuerden.deviantart.com/art/Oscar-Wilde-s-The-Duchess-of-Padua-res... ) If, at some point in the future, you decide people actually deserve credit for their work, do let me know.
Credit as a requirement of a copyright licence only applies when a copyright in fact exists. Restorations intended to be fidelitous do not create a new copyright in US law. They may or may not create one in UK law, but the question is unlikely to be resolved without an actual case - shouting at people on a mailing list is unlikely to influence the situation one way or the other.
What you really want is credit, and it is true that reusers should credit the restorer in order to properly note the provenance of an image. But you can't enforce that with a copyright that doesn't exist.
- d.
Got it. You're going to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend there's no possibility of sweat-of-the-brow copyright - because if you think a law *might* be invalid, you can break it with impunity. I'm sure that works really well, and never ends with you getting arrested.
-Adam.
On 8 July 2012 16:10, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. You're going to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend there's no possibility of sweat-of-the-brow copyright - because if you think a law *might* be invalid, you can break it with impunity. I'm sure that works really well, and never ends with you getting arrested.
The law is not computer programming, and people can sue you for anything or nothing. Per Fae's link, the sweat of the brow doctrine has been *significantly weakened* in the UK in just the past few months.
I appreciate that restoration is actually hard work and there's a strong moral argument that credit is the right thing for it, but it's not a matter of copyright unless and until you can make it stick.
In any case, your persuasive skills will definitely get you everything you could ever want, and you should certainly continue in your present manner. Remember: you catch more flies with napalm than honey.
- d.
David, you're basically arguing that, because it was weakened, you can presume it doesn't apply at all. Commons supposedly operates under the precautionary principle. This really shouldn't go out the window because you don't like the law in question, and, had you bothered to read the link in question, you'll see that, long before I came here, I was having extreme abuse hurled at me over simply asking for credit for my work. I didn't decide to pull the images on a whim.
Perhaps you should review the original discussion I linked.
In any case, Commons isn't getting my files while this policy is in place. Maybe I'll contact some universities or something, because, you know, if I didn't think I had a right to sweat of the brow copyright, I'd have happily waived it. But if I'm supposedly evil for claiming it, and no attempt to actually show that the fact that sweat-of-the-brow has been fully overturned by the UK is being made, just claims that AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL SHOULD BE THE ONLY COPYRIGHT THAT MATTERS! USA! USA! - then, frankly, I don't feel any need to help you out.
And if you think that last line is inaccurate, go read the link I gave at the start.
On 8 July 2012 16:31, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
And if you think that last line is inaccurate, go read the link I gave at the start.
I did. If you're arguing here, it would sensibly be because you'd like the policy changed. This may require actually convincing people. How do you think you're doing on this so far?
- d.
Dear David,
I'm commenting here because I honestly didn't think Commons could be acting in a manner that required them to actively ignore laws, and thought it highly unlikely that Commons would be actively removing mere requests for credit from works. That Commons apparently is doing both of those is pretty much my limit for trying to engage with Commons.
-Adam
On 8 July 2012 16:44, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
I'm commenting here because I honestly didn't think Commons could be acting in a manner that required them to actively ignore laws, and thought it highly unlikely that Commons would be actively removing mere requests for credit from works. That Commons apparently is doing both of those is pretty much my limit for trying to engage with Commons.
That's a separate allegation. Removing credit is clearly incorrect - that's the provenance of the image and it needs to be kept. However, that's an entirely separate matter from (a) asserting a nonexistent copyright (b) claiming said copyright as a reason to keep attribution with it.
Do you have diffs showing removal of the correct provenance of images? Not removal of dubious assertions of copyright, but of the thing you've just actually claimed in this email.
- d.
And, seriously, David, the law, as it stands, recognises sweat-of-the-brow. The idea that it doesn't is based on the idea that the European Court *might*, at some point in the future, declare that doctrine invalid.
That's not a legal argument, that's fortune telling.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Dear David,
I'm commenting here because I honestly didn't think Commons could be acting in a manner that required them to actively ignore laws, and thought it highly unlikely that Commons would be actively removing mere requests for credit from works. That Commons apparently is doing both of those is pretty much my limit for trying to engage with Commons.
-Adam
On 8 July 2012 16:54, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
And, seriously, David, the law, as it stands, recognises sweat-of-the-brow. The idea that it doesn't is based on the idea that the European Court *might*, at some point in the future, declare that doctrine invalid. That's not a legal argument, that's fortune telling.
commons-l isn't a place for legal arguments, a court is. Turns out you can shout a lot on a list, but it comes down to an actual legal decision.
The present situation is that fidelitous restorations just don't generate a new copyright in the US, and that's where the WMF servers are. If you want to fight this, on the basis that you're in the UK, the place to fight it is in court. This may or may not work out for you.
Look, you're starting from a bottom line and trying to construct an argument, any argument, that gets you to that bottom line. But your arguments aren't actually good enough to make anyone want to go to bat for you, and nor is your frothing tone going to convince anyone either. And, fundamentally, no-one's going to change Commons policy for the sake of getting your restorations in particular, and I think you realise this. So you need to actually make convincing arguments, because you just aren't right now.
- d.
Geni, I am a UK citizen. I don't live in Côte d'Ivoire. The UK is thus a relevant country, and if I may point you tio the actual Commons policy, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing
"For example, if a person in the UK uploads a picture that has been saved off a French website to the Commons server, the upload must be covered by UK, French and US copyright law."
The actual commons *policy* is that UK law applies. It even says it applies if the only interaction with the UK is that someone from the UK uploaded the thing.
To argue anything else is to rewrite Commons policy.
On 8 July 2012 17:05, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, I am a UK citizen. I don't live in Côte d'Ivoire.
So you accept that it is okey to ignore a countries copyright law if you are outside its jurisdiction?
The UK is thus a relevant country, and if I may point you tio the actual Commons policy, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing
"For example, if a person in the UK uploads a picture that has been saved off a French website to the Commons server, the upload must be covered by UK, French and US copyright law."
The actual commons *policy* is that UK law applies. It even says it applies if the only interaction with the UK is that someone from the UK uploaded the thing.
To argue anything else is to rewrite Commons policy.
No it isn't. Commons has a specific policy that covers this area:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag
It is also worth noting that Deviant art, the website in question, is a US based company [0], and the engraving in question is hosted on a server in germany [1].
[0] http://deviantart.theresumator.com/apply/ "deviantart is based in Hollywood CA" [1] http://th09.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2012/145/d/f/oscar_wilde__s_the_duches... th09.deviantart.net >> 94.127.76.130 http://www.geoiptool.com/en/?IP=94.127.76.130
Seth Woodworth Lead Developer, finalsclub.org
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, I am a UK citizen. I don't live in Côte d'Ivoire. The UK is thus a relevant country, and if I may point you tio the actual Commons policy, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing
"For example, if a person in the UK uploads a picture that has been saved off a French website to the Commons server, the upload must be covered by UK, French and US copyright law."
The actual commons *policy* is that UK law applies. It even says it applies if the only interaction with the UK is that someone from the UK uploaded the thing.
To argue anything else is to rewrite Commons policy.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Can you please reread http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_St... ? PD-Art never once talks about anything more than a simple photograph of the art in question, and is thus inapplicable. Further, I don't live in Cote d'Ivoire. If I did, the section I just linked says that Côte d'Ivoirian law would apply.
It would seem that you're ignoring the relevant policy:
"When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply." (Commons:Licensing)
I did the restoration work in the UK, and am a UK citizen. I don't see how you can claim that UK law is *less* relevant than "the country of residence of the uploader, and the country of location of the web servers of the website", both of which *explicitly* must be satisfied.
So, let's look at "Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag"
It doesn't apply. It says right at the top: "This page relates to photographs taken from a distance only. For scans/photocopies, see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag."
So, let's look at that page.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag
"The situation is more complex where the original raw scan has been enhanced on a selective basis, for example by means of some careful work in Photoshop to bring out certain details. This type of enhancement, although of course computer-assisted, may require a significant level of personal creative input, and as a result may generate a new copyright for the person doing the work.
"Clearly, where the work done is sufficiently extensive that the result has to be treated as a new artistic work (eg where a black and white original is ‘hand-coloured’), the image cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the new copyright owner."
So, in other words, I would appear to be right. If we agree that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag applies, it would seem you need to give me credit.
Can we agree on this and end it?
"For example, if a person in the UK uploads a picture that has been saved off a French website to the Commons server, the upload must be covered by UK, French and US copyright law."
The actual commons *policy* is that UK law applies. It even says it applies if the only interaction with the UK is that someone from the UK uploaded the thing.
To argue anything else is to rewrite Commons policy.
On 8 July 2012 17:59, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
So, let's look at that page.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag
"The situation is more complex where the original raw scan has been enhanced on a selective basis, for example by means of some careful work in Photoshop to bring out certain details. This type of enhancement, although of course computer-assisted, may require a significant level of personal creative input, and as a result may generate a new copyright for the person doing the work.
"Clearly, where the work done is sufficiently extensive that the result has to be treated as a new artistic work (eg where a black and white original is ‘hand-coloured’), the image cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the new copyright owner."
Not relevant unless you are going to take the position that you are not in fact restoring the works but creating new works that do not accurately depict the original works.
With all respect, Geni, it's clear you've never done a restoration. In cases where information is missing, it's necessary to fill it in. While this may not have been the most major restoration I've done, there were still many areas where information had to be recreated: one man had a long scratch through his eye, which meant I had to recreate the area in the scratch; there were blank areas on the legs of one person, which meant fixing the wrinkles over them, and so on. It's a lot of small, little artistic decisions, which are necessary in order to make things look right. Would other decisions work just as well? Possibly. But the very act of restoration necessarily means making such decisions.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Can you please reread http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_St... ? PD-Art never once talks about anything more than a simple photograph of the art in question, and is thus inapplicable. Further, I don't live in Cote d'Ivoire. If I did, the section I just linked says that Côte d'Ivoirian law would apply.
It would seem that you're ignoring the relevant policy:
"When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply." (Commons:Licensing)
I did the restoration work in the UK, and am a UK citizen. I don't see how you can claim that UK law is *less* relevant than "the country of residence of the uploader, and the country of location of the web servers of the website", both of which *explicitly* must be satisfied.
So, let's look at "Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag"
It doesn't apply. It says right at the top: "This page relates to photographs taken from a distance only. For scans/photocopies, see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag."
So, let's look at that page.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag
"The situation is more complex where the original raw scan has been enhanced on a selective basis, for example by means of some careful work in Photoshop to bring out certain details. This type of enhancement, although of course computer-assisted, may require a significant level of personal creative input, and as a result may generate a new copyright for the person doing the work.
"Clearly, where the work done is sufficiently extensive that the result has to be treated as a new artistic work (eg where a black and white original is ‘hand-coloured’), the image cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the new copyright owner."
So, in other words, I would appear to be right. If we agree that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag applies, it would seem you need to give me credit.
Can we agree on this and end it?
"For example, if a person in the UK uploads a picture that has been saved off a French website to the Commons server, the upload must be covered by UK, French and US copyright law."
The actual commons *policy* is that UK law applies. It even says it applies if the only interaction with the UK is that someone from the UK uploaded the thing.
To argue anything else is to rewrite Commons policy.
Adam, I am unclear exactly what rights and protections you would like on your work. I am not qualified to comment on the le
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
With all respect, Geni, it's clear you've never done a restoration. In cases where information is missing, it's necessary to fill it in. While this may not have been the most major restoration I've done, there were still many areas where information had to be recreated: one man had a long scratch through his eye, which meant I had to recreate the area in the scratch; there were blank areas on the legs of one person, which meant fixing the wrinkles over them, and so on. It's a lot of small, little artistic decisions, which are necessary in order to make things look right. Would other decisions work just as well? Possibly. But the very act of restoration necessarily means making such decisions.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Can you please reread
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_St...
? PD-Art never once talks about anything more than a simple photograph of the art in question, and is thus inapplicable. Further, I don't live in Cote d'Ivoire. If I did, the section I just linked says that Côte d'Ivoirian law would apply.
It would seem that you're ignoring the relevant policy:
"When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply." (Commons:Licensing)
I did the restoration work in the UK, and am a UK citizen. I don't see how you can claim that UK law is *less* relevant than "the country of residence of the uploader, and the country of location of the web servers of the website", both of which *explicitly* must be satisfied.
So, let's look at "Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag"
It doesn't apply. It says right at the top: "This page relates to photographs taken from a distance only. For scans/photocopies, see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag."
So, let's look at that page.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag
"The situation is more complex where the original raw scan has been enhanced on a selective basis, for example by means of some careful work in Photoshop to bring out certain details. This type of enhancement, although of course computer-assisted, may require a significant level of personal creative input, and as a result may generate a new copyright for the person doing the work.
"Clearly, where the work done is sufficiently extensive that the result has to be treated as a new artistic work (eg where a black and white original is ‘hand-coloured’), the image cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the new copyright owner."
So, in other words, I would appear to be right. If we agree that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag applies, it would seem you need to give me credit.
Can we agree on this and end it?
"For example, if a person in the UK uploads a picture that has been saved off a French website to the Commons server, the upload must be covered by UK, French and US copyright law."
The actual commons *policy* is that UK law applies. It even says it applies if the only interaction with the UK is that someone from the UK uploaded the thing.
To argue anything else is to rewrite Commons policy.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Adam, I am unclear exactly what rights and protections you would like on your work. I am not qualified to comment on the legalities of the matter, especially regarding international copyright law.
Setting aside the law for a moment, are you looking for exclusive commercial rights for your restoration work? are you looking for legally enforceable authorship citation rights? Are you happy/unhappy with having your work appear on WikiCommons? Are you interested in derivative works?
The argument you are making are focused on copyright, but when you are more specific, you seem to be desiring attribution, and want to ensure that that attribution is legally enforceable. Please forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth.
--Seth
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
With all respect, Geni, it's clear you've never done a restoration. In cases where information is missing, it's necessary to fill it in. While this may not have been the most major restoration I've done, there were still many areas where information had to be recreated: one man had a long scratch through his eye, which meant I had to recreate the area in the scratch; there were blank areas on the legs of one person, which meant fixing the wrinkles over them, and so on. It's a lot of small, little artistic decisions, which are necessary in order to make things look right. Would other decisions work just as well? Possibly. But the very act of restoration necessarily means making such decisions.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Can you please reread
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_St...
? PD-Art never once talks about anything more than a simple photograph of the art in question, and is thus inapplicable. Further, I don't live in Cote d'Ivoire. If I did, the section I just linked says that Côte d'Ivoirian law would apply.
It would seem that you're ignoring the relevant policy:
"When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply." (Commons:Licensing)
I did the restoration work in the UK, and am a UK citizen. I don't see how you can claim that UK law is *less* relevant than "the country of residence of the uploader, and the country of location of the web servers of the website", both of which *explicitly* must be satisfied.
So, let's look at "Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag"
It doesn't apply. It says right at the top: "This page relates to photographs taken from a distance only. For scans/photocopies, see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag."
So, let's look at that page.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag
"The situation is more complex where the original raw scan has been enhanced on a selective basis, for example by means of some careful work in Photoshop to bring out certain details. This type of enhancement, although of course computer-assisted, may require a significant level of personal creative input, and as a result may generate a new copyright for the person doing the work.
"Clearly, where the work done is sufficiently extensive that the result has to be treated as a new artistic work (eg where a black and white original is ‘hand-coloured’), the image cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the new copyright owner."
So, in other words, I would appear to be right. If we agree that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag applies, it would seem you need to give me credit.
Can we agree on this and end it?
"For example, if a person in the UK uploads a picture that has been saved off a French website to the Commons server, the upload must be covered by UK, French and US copyright law."
The actual commons *policy* is that UK law applies. It even says it applies if the only interaction with the UK is that someone from the UK uploaded the thing.
To argue anything else is to rewrite Commons policy.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 08/07/12 19:21, Seth Woodworth wrote:
The argument you are making are focused on copyright, but when you are more specific, you seem to be desiring attribution, and want to ensure that that attribution is legally enforceable. Please forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth.
--Seth
The fact is, it isn't that important that Wikimedia Commons gets convinced that it's new copyright. A US-based company could ignore the CC-BY tag and happily reuse it violating the license, and you would have to assert your copyright (in order to enforce the license) in the court.
In short, restoration is not a mechanical process. It requires a great deal of judgement and artistry. This judgement and artistry is used to try and repair things in a way that fits in with what existed. This is why restoration is generally *not* done on one-off, deliberative works like paintings for commons, but lithographs are a semi-randomly created process, where etching by acid creates random pits, and the amount of these pits determines the darkness of that part of the image, and there will be some variation between copies due to amount of inking and paper variations. In these gaps, you have enough freedom to do a restoration, but, outside of the basic stuff like "remove ink blotches from the white space", there's a necessary level of creative decision making to decide how to repair. To give obvious, easy-to-understand examples:in my restoration of Left Hand Bear, where the corners had been irregularly cut off to round them, in a very uneven, untidy way. I had to reconstruct those areas, including fixing some damaged text (Luckily, the LoC notes told me what it should say), and, on one corner, I actually had to fake some water damage to avoid misleading the reader by providing fine details about the sleeve that didn't exist.
Another good one was my Women's Suffrage restoration, where a big chunk was simply missing, and I had to recreate the shoulder of a dress and other incidental details, without which the eye would be immediately drawn to the damage, and away from the actual image.
I try to be fair with this. If I've done very little, I explicitly note this. If you want to say that my Quick and Easy restorations folder should be considered PD, I'd probably agree with you, in fact, I believe I've said to consider them PD. But there's a logical fallacy called the False Continuum: the idea that because there's a fuzzy area in the middle, there can't be clearcut cases on either end. That seems to be getting used to argue that no amount of work can ever gain a copyright (in explicit violation of the text of the PD-scan policy). Note that that policy also points out that the amount of artistic decision is very low in the UK.
Commons can deal with ambiguity. For instance, very simple logos can't gain copyright? How simple? We don't know, so the bar of how simple is simply set at a point sufficiently low (text, geometric shapes) that it's clear cut, which lets Commons benefit from the policy, while still staying well away from anything that can get us in trouble.
-Adam Cuerden
Anyway, after talking with Howcheng, I've decided to show good faith by reopening my gallery. I'd hope that you don't make me regret this.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
In short, restoration is not a mechanical process. It requires a great deal of judgement and artistry. This judgement and artistry is used to try and repair things in a way that fits in with what existed. This is why restoration is generally *not* done on one-off, deliberative works like paintings for commons, but lithographs are a semi-randomly created process, where etching by acid creates random pits, and the amount of these pits determines the darkness of that part of the image, and there will be some variation between copies due to amount of inking and paper variations. In these gaps, you have enough freedom to do a restoration, but, outside of the basic stuff like "remove ink blotches from the white space", there's a necessary level of creative decision making to decide how to repair. To give obvious, easy-to-understand examples:in my restoration of Left Hand Bear, where the corners had been irregularly cut off to round them, in a very uneven, untidy way. I had to reconstruct those areas, including fixing some damaged text (Luckily, the LoC notes told me what it should say), and, on one corner, I actually had to fake some water damage to avoid misleading the reader by providing fine details about the sleeve that didn't exist.
Another good one was my Women's Suffrage restoration, where a big chunk was simply missing, and I had to recreate the shoulder of a dress and other incidental details, without which the eye would be immediately drawn to the damage, and away from the actual image.
I try to be fair with this. If I've done very little, I explicitly note this. If you want to say that my Quick and Easy restorations folder should be considered PD, I'd probably agree with you, in fact, I believe I've said to consider them PD. But there's a logical fallacy called the False Continuum: the idea that because there's a fuzzy area in the middle, there can't be clearcut cases on either end. That seems to be getting used to argue that no amount of work can ever gain a copyright (in explicit violation of the text of the PD-scan policy). Note that that policy also points out that the amount of artistic decision is very low in the UK.
Commons can deal with ambiguity. For instance, very simple logos can't gain copyright? How simple? We don't know, so the bar of how simple is simply set at a point sufficiently low (text, geometric shapes) that it's clear cut, which lets Commons benefit from the policy, while still staying well away from anything that can get us in trouble.
-Adam Cuerden
The fact is, it isn't that important that Wikimedia Commons gets convinced that it's new copyright. A US-based company could ignore the CC-BY tag and happily reuse it violating the license, and you would have to assert your copyright (in order to enforce the license) in the court.
While that's a fair point, it's irrelevant. I realise there are limitations to how far the CC-by license will apply. However, I don't see how on earth that means I should have to give up my rights to it, or are all the photographers on this list going to give up their CC licenses because companies in countries where copyright is poorly enforced - China, say - could ignore the CC license and happily reuse it, violating the license, and they would have to assert their copyright (in order to enforce the license) in the court?
No, people are smart enough to recognise that making their things available means that their licenses might get violated, and that, in some cases, they may not be able to enforce the licenses. That doesn't mean that we say that Commons should only accept releases into the public domain.
-Adam Cuerden.
Let's face it, international laws vary. I can assert my copyright, and have it apply to the EU, and very likely wouldn't get it in America. Photographers can assert their copyright, and get America and the EU, but lose out on, say, Somalia (where copyright, and any sort of government, don't exist). That there are limitations doesn't mean you have the right to remove my rights from where it does apply, and, through your copyfraud, encourage UK companies to violate my copyright.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
The fact is, it isn't that important that Wikimedia Commons gets convinced that it's new copyright. A US-based company could ignore the CC-BY tag and happily reuse it violating the license, and you would have to assert your copyright (in order to enforce the license) in the court.
While that's a fair point, it's irrelevant. I realise there are limitations to how far the CC-by license will apply. However, I don't see how on earth that means I should have to give up my rights to it, or are all the photographers on this list going to give up their CC licenses because companies in countries where copyright is poorly enforced - China, say - could ignore the CC license and happily reuse it, violating the license, and they would have to assert their copyright (in order to enforce the license) in the court?
No, people are smart enough to recognise that making their things available means that their licenses might get violated, and that, in some cases, they may not be able to enforce the licenses. That doesn't mean that we say that Commons should only accept releases into the public domain.
-Adam Cuerden.
On 8 July 2012 18:57, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Let's face it, international laws vary. I can assert my copyright, and have it apply to the EU, and very likely wouldn't get it in America. Photographers can assert their copyright, and get America and the EU, but lose out on, say, Somalia (where copyright, and any sort of government, don't exist). That there are limitations doesn't mean you have the right to remove my rights from where it does apply, and, through your copyfraud, encourage UK companies to violate my copyright.
Argument by repeated assertion is not in fact valid. You have done hard work on these things, but there's so far no evidence you have an enforceable copyright, and a pile of evidence against. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, you're asking Commons to knowingly make claims about enforceability of said nonexistent copyright that are false.
You can post a hundred times that black is white, but it still isn't.
(Actually, your persuasive powers pegged at zero when you tried to claim that not agreeing with your spurious claims of ownership on a mailing list would lead to arrest. Not that I expect you to understand this in any way at all.)
- d.
Do forgive me if the threading is a bit messed up on this, but Seth asks a question that I feel I should answer:
Adam, I am unclear exactly what rights and protections you would like on your work. I am not qualified to comment on the legalities of the matter, especially regarding international copyright law.
Setting aside the law for a moment, are you looking for exclusive commercial rights for your restoration work? are you looking for legally enforceable authorship citation rights? Are you happy/unhappy with having your work appear on WikiCommons? Are you interested in derivative works?
In order:
* No, I am not looking for exclusive commercial rights. If I was, I would hardly be putting them under a CC-by license. * While I recognise that it may not apply in the United states, and that such power should be used carefully, yes, I would like legally eenforcable authorship citation rights. * If Commons stops trying to change a CC-by license to a PD one, I'm fine with Commons having the works. I don't actually *like* Commons much, but at the same time, I do think that the resources should be available to students/teachers/historians/etc, etc, and that a part of making these resources easily usable is waiving the right to commercial gain on my part. * If people want to further edit them, they can feel free.
And this is pretty much why I found this whole conversation incredibly annoying. I was asking for a bare minimum of rights, in the full knowledge of what I was asking for, and limiting what I asked for to the absolute bare minimum possible - that I get attribution when it's used, in some manner, so that people can find the work I did and use it themselves.
On 8 July 2012 19:06, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
- If Commons stops trying to change a CC-by license to a PD one, I'm
fine with Commons having the works. I don't actually *like* Commons
The issue people have is that you are asserting a copyright that doesn't exist. A lot of people have a serious problem with that. They consider it an attempt at enclosure of the public domain.
- d.
In the end, this comes down to one thing: If I ask to be cited, I will be. If Wikipedia removes this request, and acts as if I haven't asked to be cited, my work will not be cited.
I don't see how Wikipedia thinks that it has the right to act as if my wishes - a simple request that I get credited for my work when it's used, ideally with a link back, so that people can find the other things I've done and use them as well - are something that's evil and should not be communicated to people wishing to reuse it.
It's not like I'm asking for anything that would impede usage of the files in any way whatsoever. Hell, if you wanted, I'd even be willing to work out a license *even less restrictive than CC-by* But how on earth are people going to even find my work to reuse it if it gets printed and used without an attribution?
-Adam Cuerden
To David: Have you even read my description of creative input into restoration work? There are a *lot* of creative decisions involved in restorations, and you seem determined to ignore this.
Also, I realise that English isn't your first language, but I was making an analogy in the bit you quote: You were asserting that because the sweat-of-the-brow was weakened, that it didn't exist. But A. it's not just sweat-of-the-brow, there's also creative decisions, and B. you yourself said that it would need to be tried in a court of law to find out if the doctrine held, which is basically you saying that the law *might* be on my side, but you weren't sure. C. "Bear in mind, though, that the level of originality required by the UK courts is quite low compared with the level needed in most other European jurisdictions." - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag
Geni wrote:
I know all this but at the present time the US courts seem to judge by intentions.
Commons does not let us upload a pre-1923 work by a British artist who died in 1960, even though the US courts would say it's out of copyright. Commons attempts to follow all relevant international copyright laws, so what the US courts think is irrelevant to this situation.
-Adam
Gaurav Vaidya suggests:
This is awesome, Adam -- thanks so much for making your work freely available! Maybe we could reach a compromise in which the "Permissions" of your uploads could read, "This image was restored from [[Image:other|Image title]] and restored by [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]. The original image is in the public domain in the US/UK as its creator died in XXXX. The restored image has been licensed under a CC-BY license; in some countries, these restorations may not qualify for independent copyright and would fall into the public domain.". Then it would be up to the users as to how they choose to reuse the image. The image would be categorized and tagged as a CC-BY image, but the text would make it clear that public domain use of this image might be possible in certain jurisdictions.
The downside of this is that it'll be possible for people in the US (or anywhere else) to claim that Adam's copyright claim does not stand under UK law; however, they can do this now, and Adam doesn't have any recourse apart from the courts. However, it does record his claim, credits his work, allows users to quickly find the indisputably-public-domain image behind the restoration, and ensures that the restored images' copyright restriction of at most CC-BY is recognized. And most importantly, it makes Adam happy, so we can continue to use his modifications of these images.
I'd suggest that this seems a little excessively focused on the negative; we don't, for instance, feel the need to state that a particularly simple photograph might not be in copyright in Italy because it might be too simple and thus fall under that weird Italian law clause.
As well, at some point,a restoration is copyrightable, even under US laws. In one restoration, I combined two photographs and recreated a good 3-4% of the image. At some point, your disclaimer is going to become actively false, and I'd like some discussion on where the disclaimer gets dropped.
On 8 July 2012 22:31, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Geni wrote:
I know all this but at the present time the US courts seem to judge by intentions.
Commons does not let us upload a pre-1923 work by a British artist who died in 1960, even though the US courts would say it's out of copyright. Commons attempts to follow all relevant international copyright laws,
Nope. Commons has decided that this is one area where it isn't going to pay attention to non US law.
On 7/8/2012 5:08 PM, geni wrote:
Nope. Commons has decided that this is one area where it isn't going to pay attention to non US law.
The reason for this is that certain non-US law is actually bad law. Copyright involves creativity in terms of creation. Such a creation may be another wholly new compilation of another creation, but a restoration unfortunately does not qualify; primarily because it is, in fact, a "restoration". The definition of restoration is an act of making something as best as one can to an original state--which involves a lot of work and talent but by definition no particular creativity whatsoever. It is *not* a new creation.
The reason the UK "Sweat of the brow" law has been weakened is because it is a bad law. What it describes and demands rights for is not copyright, it is a demand for credit for work done. I don't see a problem with requesting demand for work done for downward users; but such a request should not and cannot be enforced by using copyright demands.
You will never convince Commons users to use a copyright tag on something that is not enforceable by copyright law which either doesn't exist (US) or is bad law (UK).
Cary
Hi Adam and everybody,
On 08-Jul-2012, at 12:06 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
Do forgive me if the threading is a bit messed up on this, but Seth asks a question that I feel I should answer:
Adam, I am unclear exactly what rights and protections you would like on your work. I am not qualified to comment on the legalities of the matter, especially regarding international copyright law.
Setting aside the law for a moment, are you looking for exclusive commercial rights for your restoration work? are you looking for legally enforceable authorship citation rights? Are you happy/unhappy with having your work appear on WikiCommons? Are you interested in derivative works?
In order:
- No, I am not looking for exclusive commercial rights. If I was, I
would hardly be putting them under a CC-by license.
- While I recognise that it may not apply in the United states, and
that such power should be used carefully, yes, I would like legally eenforcable authorship citation rights.
- If Commons stops trying to change a CC-by license to a PD one, I'm
fine with Commons having the works. I don't actually *like* Commons much, but at the same time, I do think that the resources should be available to students/teachers/historians/etc, etc, and that a part of making these resources easily usable is waiving the right to commercial gain on my part.
- If people want to further edit them, they can feel free.
This is awesome, Adam -- thanks so much for making your work freely available! Maybe we could reach a compromise in which the "Permissions" of your uploads could read, "This image was restored from [[Image:other|Image title]] and restored by [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]. The original image is in the public domain in the US/UK as its creator died in XXXX. The restored image has been licensed under a CC-BY license; in some countries, these restorations may not qualify for independent copyright and would fall into the public domain.". Then it would be up to the users as to how they choose to reuse the image. The image would be categorized and tagged as a CC-BY image, but the text would make it clear that public domain use of this image might be possible in certain jurisdictions.
The downside of this is that it'll be possible for people in the US (or anywhere else) to claim that Adam's copyright claim does not stand under UK law; however, they can do this now, and Adam doesn't have any recourse apart from the courts. However, it does record his claim, credits his work, allows users to quickly find the indisputably-public-domain image behind the restoration, and ensures that the restored images' copyright restriction of at most CC-BY is recognized. And most importantly, it makes Adam happy, so we can continue to use his modifications of these images.
Incidentally, there's a *very* detailed analysis of where originality begins in image restoration at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_from_Darw... which I don't think has been brought up in this thread yet.
cheers, Gaurav
On 2012-07-08 14:06, Adam Cuerden wrote:
- No, I am not looking for exclusive commercial rights. If I was, I
would hardly be putting them under a CC-by license.
Thanks for these clarifications. What you write here is something often heard from museums. After learning about Creative Commons, people get all busy with picking the right license. But "putting" (or releasing) something under a CC license requires that there is a copyright to begin with, and only the owner of that copyright can put something under a CC license. So when you want to put your work under CC-BY, you must start by asserting that "this work is covered by copyright, owned by me". To win that argument, you should probably upload both the original, damaged image, marked as PD, and your restored version, marked as a work of your own copyright. People who want the PD image can then use the damaged original, at their own loss. It can still be argued whether your restoration is creative enough to merit copyright, but clearly indicating the difference should make your case easier.
Still, winning the argument is not done by reaching a compromise on this mailing list. We're just a bunch of individuals. There is no Wikipedia that "wants" or "thinks" something. Even if we all were to agree that the moon is made from blue cheese, someone with a differing opinion can appear on Commons tomorrow, and the argument starts over. Only time and court decisions can tell which legal interpretation will prevail. (I don't agree with Cary Bass that there is any "bad" law. There is only law that prevails, and law that gets overturned.)
The OpenStreetMap project wants to be the Wikipedia of maps, using CC-BY-SA or a similar license. But because they found it hard to assert copyright over a database of coordinates, which is what the content of OpenStreetMap is, they are now in the middle of a very complex change of license, based on a mix of laws, not only copyright.
On 8 July 2012 18:13, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
With all respect, Geni, it's clear you've never done a restoration.
Oh but I have. Admittedly generally on canals rather than 2D images.
In cases where information is missing, it's necessary to fill it in. While this may not have been the most major restoration I've done, there were still many areas where information had to be recreated: one man had a long scratch through his eye, which meant I had to recreate the area in the scratch; there were blank areas on the legs of one person, which meant fixing the wrinkles over them, and so on. It's a lot of small, little artistic decisions, which are necessary in order to make things look right. Would other decisions work just as well? Possibly. But the very act of restoration necessarily means making such decisions.
I know all this but at the present time the US courts seem to judge by intentions.
On 8 July 2012 16:44, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Dear David,
I'm commenting here because I honestly didn't think Commons could be acting in a manner that required them to actively ignore laws, and thought it highly unlikely that Commons would be actively removing mere requests for credit from works. That Commons apparently is doing both of those is pretty much my limit for trying to engage with Commons.
-Adam
Well in this case the engraving is from 1872. Can you show that both authors died before 1913? Otherwise you are ignoring the law of Ivory Coast (life+99). I'm sure you see the problem.
Commons is based in the US which at the present time doesn't recognise "sweat of the brow" as a valid mechanism to claim copyright. As a result commons doesn't have to recognise it. Doing so creates an extremely complicated situation as we would effectively have to set up our own standards with little legal guidance something which never ends well (see the de minimis mess)
I doubt for example that you would argue that the 15 mins or so I spent messing around with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Punch_sultan_visit_1867reduced.png
qualifies for copyright but depending on where you draw the sweat of the brow line it could.