Adam Cuerden vs. Fæ, David Gerard and Commons

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Adam Cuerden vs. Fæ, David Gerard and Commons

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:02 pm

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/co ... /date.html

In this entertaining little rally, bridging the rain break in Wimbledon, Cuerden asks, "Does Commons have a policy of violating UK copyright?"
Got it. You're going to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend there's no possibility of sweat-of-the-brow copyright - because if you think a law *might* be invalid, you can break it with impunity. I'm sure that works really well, and never ends with you getting arrested.
:popcorn:

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Adam Cuerden vs. Fæ, David Gerard and Commons

Unread post by lilburne » Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:20 pm

Seems to have found its way onto Talk Wales. Interesting. This comes down to whether the digital file is the image or not. Whether they are copying the image, or the medium?

In any case I think that one should always add a little something to things like this. For example a little dog peeking out from under the woman's dress, or maybe change the artist's signature on the side of the chair into trollface:
http://adamcuerden.deviantart.com/art/O ... -304213563
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Adam Cuerden vs. Fæ, David Gerard and Commons

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:28 pm

The Great And Powerful Gerard, He Speaketh!
Credit as a requirement of a copyright licence only applies when a
copyright in fact exists. Restorations intended to be fidelitous do
not create a new copyright in US law. They may or may not create one
in UK law, but the question is unlikely to be resolved without an
actual case - shouting at people on a mailing list is unlikely to
influence the situation one way or the other.

What you really want is credit, and it is true that reusers should
credit the restorer in order to properly note the provenance of an
image. But you can't enforce that with a copyright that doesn't exist.
He oughta know about "shouting at people on a mailing list"--
having done it thousands of times himself.

Plus:
Per Fae's link, the sweat of the brow doctrine
has been *significantly weakened* in the UK in just the past few
months.
Sez what legal experts? Classic David, he really doesn't think the
laws apply to him.

User avatar
piku
Critic
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Pieter Kuiper
Wikipedia Review Member: pietkuip

Re: Adam Cuerden vs. Fæ, David Gerard and Commons

Unread post by piku » Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:38 am

It should be safe to ignore that license requiring attribution to Adam Cuerden for some fiddling with this drawing by Gilliam:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... ibunal.jpg.

Post Reply