On 8 July 2012 15:31, Adam Cuerden <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
