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.