Hoi,
When you make something available under any license, it is only possible
because of a claim of copyright.
When you consider the issue at hand, you can restrict yourself to the legal
side of things. This does not really help when you consider what it is
people like Adam or organisations like the Walters museum want to achieve.
The point is that we as the publishers of the material provided by both
have a real good reason why we should support them in their aims.
When we include in the meta-data information about a restoration and
information about the location of the original material we provide
provenance to the images involved. This is very much the same thing when we
add citations to facts in Wikipedia.
It is for our own reasons why we should include this data, not for legal
reasons. When we include this data, we become more relevant as a partner to
our GLAM partners. What they need is recognition for the vital role they
play in the preservation of our cultural heritage. When we include
information about the people who restored images, we recognise their hard
work and this recognition is what motivates many people to start such
projects.
The information about the whereabouts of material should be easily visible.
It should be no more than one click away just like it is with citations.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 10 July 2012 03:50, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> wrote:
> Before everyone declares WWIII, it should be made clear that there is no
> "correct" answer to this problem. Not only is sweat-of-the-brow
> inconsistent between different countries, it is inconsistent _within_ many
> common law countries (including the UK). The only thing that is
> well-established is that the U.S. doesn't apply sweat-of-the-brow and has a
> relatively high threshold-of-originality (a separate, but related concept).
> Regarding the UK, most legal scholars agree on the following:
> * U.K. courts have historically recognized sweat-of-the-brow
> * The written law in the U.K. has recently become less friendly to
> application of sweat-of-the-brow
> * Application of sweat-of-the-brow has been declining (or disappeared
> entirely) in all former Commonwealth countries, a trend which the U.K.
> courts are well aware of
> * There has been no clear-cut definitive decision regarding this issue in
> the U.K. in recent history
> So what does this boil down to? Basically, that no one has any idea if
> sweat-of-the-brow is still a solid legal doctrine in the U.K. or not. Nor
> does anyone have a clear idea of what the threshold-of-originality is in
> the U.K.
>
> Regardless of whether the U.K. is a sweat-of-the-brow country or not,
> there are certainly countries that are. In Taiwan, Spain, Sweden, Norway,
> Denmark, Iceland, Finland, etc., Adam probably has a copyright on his
> restorations whether he wants them or not. In these cases, is it better for
> him to retain full copyright or apply a CC-BY-SA license? This is the exact
> same situation I was in with the 2D Walters Museum uploads. Even though I
> explicitly declared that the images were CC-BY-SA _only_ in
> sweat-of-the-brow countries, the Commons community went ape-shit over the
> Walters Museum committing "copyfraud" by not simply applying PD-Art. So
> basically, the choice for an uploader is either be accused of copyfraud or
> retain your full copyrights in sweat-of-the-brow countries (which may
> include the U.K.). This seems like a pretty silly situation, but I'm not
> sure what the solution is. Should we really insist on PD-Art tags when the
> author wants to make their work CC-BY or CC-BY-SA? Whether or not PD-Art is
> "more free" depends on which country you are in, so there is no clean and
> easy solution.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> On 7/9/12 5:11 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
>
>> Adam, I was trying to help you get the credit you deserve, by helping you
>> avoid a fight for an untenable position. I will now leave you, however,
>> since you are determined to pursue it.
>>
>> - C.
>>
>> On 7/9/2012 4:11 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
>>
>>> TL;DR version: I'm attempting to find a compromise, by pointing to
>>> restorations where there was clear, obvious creative input, such as
>>> having to reconstruct large damaged areas using creativity and
>>> artistic skill, while being potentially willing to waive my rights on
>>> simpler restorations, if we can simply agree on some rough guidelines
>>> for when that threshold is crossed. Cary and David seem determined to
>>> refight my original position, telling me that even where I've
>>> reconstructed large sections without any model for how to do so, that,
>>> since I was trying to get my work to blend in with the original,
>>> there's no copyright. Isn't that kind of like saying that if I make an
>>> image in the style of Durer, and work it into an actual Durer
>>> engraving I don't get a copyright on my work because Durer died more
>>> than 100 years ago?
>>>
>>> Well, I'll let others respond before continuing.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l>
>>
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l>
>
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
