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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can you please reread > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law > > ? 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
