On 9 July 2012 20:56, Cary Bass bastique.ml@bastique.com wrote:
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.
Absolutely, and it would be better if reusers credited restorers, because that gives the correct provenance of an image. Adam absolutely should be credited.
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.
And liars. For sweat of the brow to stick in such cases in the UK, someone has to win a case.
- d.