Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First colored senator and reps.jpg

First colored senator and representatives edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2012 at 09:58:10 (UTC)

Original – First African American Senator and Representatives: Sen. Hiram Revels (R-MI), Rep. Benjamin S. Turner (R-AL), Robert DeLarge (R-SC), Josiah Walls (R-FL), Jefferson Long (R-GA), Joseph Rainey and Robert B. Elliott (R-SC)

Reason: This historical image from 1872 depicts the first elected African American US senator and representatives
Articles in which this image appears: List of African-American Republicans, History of the United States Republican Party, African Americans in the United States Congress, List of African-American officeholders during the Reconstruction
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Currier and Ives, uploaded by Lionelt, restored by User:Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator --– Lionel ^(talk) 09:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of restorations discussion

Point of order': There's a much larger version available (the Tiff is nearly 6000 px wide, to this one's 1000). Also, the paper is a very unnatural shade of yellow; a good general assumption when doing restorations is that most paper will be somewhere fairly near white, with only a little yellow, unless there's evidence this is likely otherwise. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading the tiff as a png here: File:First colored senator and reps.png. Looks like there's a bug. Regarding the yellow, according to the Lib of Congress this is the "digital file from original print" (emph. mine) [1] – Lionel ^(talk) 02:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The LoC do scan the original print. They do not calibrate this scan. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which version is preferable: "digital file from original print", "digital file from color film copy slide" or "digital file from b&w film copy neg"? [2] – Lionel ^(talk) 04:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia cares so much about images that they haven't yet bothered to fix thumbnail generation for large PNGS... five years after being told it was a problem. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original not the film, and all the LOC images I've delt with have a color bar, which corrects any "calibrate" issues as the IP thinks. If your not able to color correct based on the color bar then ask for help from someone. There isn't a bug with large PNG's, Linux can't deal with PNG/GIF images over that size, so no thumbnail is made. The process is you upload the PNG and a JPEG of the image, then use the following template {{JPEG version of PNG|File:name.png}}, example of usage is on File:Illinois_Central_Railroad_freight_terminal,_Chicago,_Ill_Restored.jpg that image of mine. — raeky t 12:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't done one without a colour box, you haven't done very many LoC scans. The vast majority lack them. Secondly, it is a bug; I linked to the bug report, which includes, at the bottom, a link to the solution they've finally began implementing. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on this point. I've downloaded a ton of images from the LOC and ones with the color bar are few and far in between. I'm always so happy to get one of those because it's much easier to correct. —howcheng {chat} 18:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for which to use - I'd suggest the CC-licensed restoration at http://adamcuerden.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d56h6gm 86.139.213.143 (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't claim copyright on a restoration of a public domain image... and no that wouldn't be the best version. Theres several quite talented people here who can restore it.. surprisingly after loading up the TIFF it does not have a color bar... the yellowing of the paper has little effect in it's EV to me, imho. — raeky t 12:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a UK citizen, yes, I totally can claim copyright. Please know what you're talking about before making sweeping claims. Further, I've removed dust, scratches, dirt, stains, and other such things, took several hours to do so, and... never mind. I don't know why I bother. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is in the United States, ergo, not copyrighted, and not something we're even concerned about, learn our policies before making such claims maybe? — raeky t 12:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law "When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply. If material that has been saved from a third-party website is uploaded to Commons, the copyright laws of the U.S., the country of residence of the uploader, and the country of location of the web servers of the website apply. Thus, any licence to use the material should apply in all relevant jurisdictions; if the material is in the public domain, it must normally be in the public domain in all these jurisdictions (plus in the country of origin of the work) for it to be allowable on Commons."

If you wanted to upload it without my license, you could theretically upload it here - but would have to mark it as being uneligible for transfer to Commons, and I'm afraid there isn't a standard license tag for "I want to violate someone's moral rights to their work instead of using the Commons-acceptable CC-license they allow". I really didn't expect a "no good deed goes unpunished" scenario because I thought the image content was important, and wanted to help it get on the main page.

86.139.213.143 (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You aware of the outcome of commons:User:Dcoetzee/NPG_legal_threat? Wikimedia's official policy with "Sweat of the brow" copyrights is that we don't recognize them, they're tagged as such on Commons, but still maintain the public domain license. Because wikimedia's servers and organization is in the United States and the United States does not recognize "Sweat of the brow" copyrights for public domain, we have no copyright concerns uploading or using such images and tagging them public domain. So your interpretation of policy in this regard is wrong. — raeky t 13:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those were simple photographs, these are multi-hour restorations. If you decide to tell everyone to violate my copyrights, I will put in a complaint to Wikimedia. I note you don't actually bother to link to any sort of commons policy on the matter that would justify your claims. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Public_domain#Derived_works_and_restorations_of_works_in_the_public_domain — raeky t 13:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an English Wikipedia policy, it's not a Commons policy. I quoted the commons policy above, which is much more restrictive. It's why we havs {{PD-US-1923}} on here, and not commons. Because commons uses international copyright, not just US. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The law is unless you MODIFY the artwork to add new (creative) material to it, then the restoration is not copyrightable in the United States, and the policy of Wikimedia (which includes Commons) is that we don't recognize "sweat of the brow" copyrights. Color correcting and removing minor imperfections that was not on the original image, i.e. removing effects of time/wear from an image IS NOT copyrightable in the united states, and thus allowed on ALL of wikimedia's servers, including Commons. You can continue to claim whatever you want, or assert copyright over your restoration, go ahead and threaten me, whatever, it doesn't change the policy of wikipedia/commons in this matter. So even if you was to upload your image to Commons (which is strange why you didn't) and assert copyright over it, someone is perfectly in line to modify it to PD-Art and place appropriate PD tags on it. If you have concerns about the PD-Art tag, then take that up with Commons. — raeky t 13:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed true, I shall have to strongly consider blocking downloads of the full size of my artworks, which would be unfortunate. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, the actual policy here that resulted in the NPG legal threats is the tag PD-Art, and the commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag page detailing it's use. Simple restorations are entirely included under PD-Art, the extent of the restoration might make PD-Art inappropriate, but the policy of wikimedia is that they're ALWAYS going to side on the PD side of the issue, and are VERY much interested in taking it to court if someone was to try to sue them. They strongly disagree on "sweat of the brow" copyrights, and feel it's a detriment to society, and should never be allowed. Once an artwork goes into public domain, the owner of the artwork shouldn't be allowed to just lock it away in a vault and only present reproductions of it and lock it away behind copyright again. The same principle applies here, your taking a purely public domain artwork, an artwork that belongs to everyone, something that is freely available, making some minor color corrections, removing some dust, or damage, and then trying to assert copyright over that again. Any law that allows that is repugnant and goes against the core fundamentals of a free open society, and that's is the OFFICIAL policy of wikimedia. — raeky t 14:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're basically saying you want to take someone who was happy to have his work used for any purpose - and [[meta:Don't be a dick|forcefully remove his right to be credited for that work], which was literally the only request made, and in the process, turn that work into a copyvio under British laws? What the fuck is wrong with you? You don't want people getting credit for their work, and will go off on a damn crusade against crediting people? That's what's worth getting upset about now? Giving people credit?! 86.139.213.143 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to asserting copyright over a public domain image, yes, United States law and Wikimedia policy says a person does not need to credit the source of the image (aside from the regular sourcing requirements of things for verification here at wikipedia/commons, I mean usage beyond that), it's public domain, it belongs to EVERYONE, and we could give a flying RIP about UK law, (by we I mean Wikimedia). The restoration is perfectly fine to mention the restorer on the file's info page, but there is ZERO obligation for anyone using that image to credit you for it, why should they? It's a public domain image, that you just color corrected, removed some dust or stains from. That's not copyright-able. Ever hear about doing things to help society for just the societies sake? Why the HELL do you expect to have your name emblazonment in lights for your contributions? That's pretty damn selfish. If you want your name on artwork, make new original artwork, don't go around taking assets of the public and trying to repackage it to force people to recognize you, that's silly. — raeky t 14:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm so fucking sorry that I've made literally over a thousand images available, and for most of them I did waive my copyright. But when I started to notice downsides to this - that people were using my work and its lack of a need of credit in order to sell prints of it for hundreds of dollars when people could have gotten the download themselves - and decided to go with the minimal action of insisting on credit, suddenly, I'm selfish for trying to offer my images to be used for any purpose, with only one minor restriction. You have such charming manners, I'm sure you convince lots of people to your viewpoint. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why your not editing from User:Adam Cuerden or are you not him? I'm sure your aware of the policies of IP editors here at FPC? — raeky t 14:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am retired, but was (this may have ended because of you) working with Howcheng to get some of my works since my retirement onto WP. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The restoration is no longer available for download. I'm sorry it's come to this, but I have zero tolerance for bullying and active breaking of the law, particularly when the alternative is that you follow basic human decency, and give people the requested credit for their work. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HOLD UP A MINUTE!!!! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag says you have to give credit for restorations! How the hell did that not get noticed sooner? 86.139.213.143 (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The LOC doesn't use a flatbed scanner or a photocopier for their digitizations, those potentially can damage a valuable artwork, since it requires more touching, more movement, and such, archivists use overhead photography, i.e. photographing from a distance, for their digitization projects. So PD-Art almost immediately applies for anything at the LOC archive. Secondly, what you are doing are faithful restorations of the artwork, i.e. trying to get it to look as close to the original as possible, removing aging/damage. This doesn't add new creative details to the artwork, and although Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. doesn't specifically address this, I think it would be an EXTREMELY hard sell to any judge that this kind of restoration deserves any copyright protection in the United States. Thirdly, I didn't say that restoration credit isn't necessary, or warranted for the IMAGE PAGE AT COMMONS. What I said is that since it's not covered by copyright protections someone can take that image and do whatever they want with it. Your UK copyright laws does not apply to the rest of the world, and Wikimedia makes CLEAR note of that and tags them as public domain. PD-scan would only apply for things YOU YOURSELF scanned, as PD-Art dictates, for LOC restored images PD-Art would be more appropriate, most appropriate is the right PD tag that you'd use on the original from LOC with just notes in the image page that it was restored and by whom. No matter what arguing you want to do is not going to turn a faithfully restored public domain image into a CC license, it's going to REMAIN public domain here. — raeky t 17:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake you wouldn't use PD-scan if you scanned it yourself, you'd use PD-old, and if your referring too the part "If you have made enhancements requiring a significant level of personal creativity, license those enhancements using a tag of your own choice such as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}." please note the bold text, the argument is that a faithful restoration to remove minor damage/aging is not "significant level of personal creativity." If you had to recreate a missing section of the artwork (something beyond clone tool), or colorized it, or made alterations that would be considered "personal creativity" then you'd have a case for copyright, removing a stain, scratch or yellowing of the paper, is not. — raeky t 17:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In discussion with Howcheng, I've decided to show good faith by reopening my gallery. However, Raeky, let me make this clear:

Restoration is not a mechanical process. It requires a great deal of judgement and artistry. This judgement and artistry is used to try and repair things in a way that fits in with what existed. This is why restoration is generally *not* done on one-off, deliberative works like paintings for commons; however, as lithographs are a semi-randomly created process, where etching by acid creates random pits, and the amount of these pits determines the darkness of that part of the image, and there will be some variation between copies due to amount of inking and paper variations. In this variation, you have enough freedom to exercise artistic judgement and do a restoration, but, outside of the basic stuff like "remove ink blotches from the white space", there's a necessary level of creative decision making to decide how to repair. To give obvious, easy-to-understand examples:in my restoration of Left Hand Bear, where the corners had been irregularly cut off to round them, in a very uneven, untidy way. I had to reconstruct those areas, including fixing some damaged text (Luckily, the LoC notes told me what it should say), and, on one corner, I actually had to fake some water damage to avoid misleading the reader by providing fine details about the sleeve that didn't exist.

Another good one was my Women's Suffrage restoration, where a big chunk was simply missing, and I had to recreate the shoulder of a dress and other incidental details, without which the eye would be immediately drawn to the damage, and away from the actual image.

I try to be fair with this. If I've done very little, I explicitly note this. If you want to say that my Quick and Easy restorations folder should be considered PD, I'd probably agree with you, in fact, I believe I've said to consider them PD. But there's a logical fallacy called the False Continuum: the idea that because there's a fuzzy area in the middle, there can't be clearcut cases on either end. That seems to be getting used to argue that no amount of work can ever gain a copyright (in explicit violation of the text of the PD-scan policy). Note that that policy also points out that the amount of artistic decision is very low in the UK. You're attempting to claim that this sort of restoration has no creative input; however, especially in cases where there's missing information, give 10 restorationists the same image, and you'll get 10 different solutions.

I'll freely admit this one was not the most difficult of restoration, and didn't have large missing areas. Work I did on this one including repairing a damaged eye, reconstructing some fabric wrinkles where damage near the middle of the image had created a long, jagged vertical line, fixing scratches and stains that damaged facial features, like a fairly wide vertical stain on one man's face, and other such work, covering most of the image. That requires creative input. Yes, the goal is to make the work blend in, but, allow me to remind you the PD-scan policy explicitly points out the bar of creativity is very low in the UK, and I'm pretty sure I've passed it.

Commons can deal with ambiguity. For instance, very simple logos can't gain copyright? How simple? We don't know, so the bar of how simple is simply set at a point sufficiently low (text, geometric shapes) that it's clear cut, which lets Commons benefit from the policy, while still staying well away from anything that can get us in trouble. 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.213.143 (talk)

This is a fairly silly argument IMHO. Adam has put the effort into making these restorations and has made them available for free for anyone to use, and all he's asking for is a credit, which seems like common courtesy to me. The CC-BY licensing is just formalizing this request. If anyone reusing the image doesn't follow through with that, it's Adam's problem, not the WMF's. Now, if his restorations were licensed all rights reserved or CC-BY-NC-ND, this might be an argument worth having, but as it stands, what are we gaining here except hurt feelings? —howcheng {chat} 18:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going against the deputy director of wikimedia foundation's (and by extension the foundation's) wishes on how we handle these kinds of copyrights is proper? Noone is saying that people SHOULDN'T credit the restorer/digitizer/source of a public domain image, but what was said is they're not LEGALLY REQUIRED TO. A faithful restoration of a public domain image doesn't grant it CC-by license, it's still public domain, according to United States law, and that's how we interpret it at Wikimeida according to the foundation's leaders. Adam hasn't really been civil in his request here, telling us to "fuck off" and all that, because we're simply following licensing policy here. Hes been yelling on Jimbo's user page, starting e-mail list threads all about this topic and how he feels wikimedia's policy is unjust. Adam had a little freak-out here I think, lost his temper and tried to run to daddy (Jimbo) to get his way, and that's entirely inappropriate, along with calling me a dick, then calling the whole wikimedia foundation a dick for their policy. We don't just change policies set in place by directors of the foundation because we're worried about pissing off one contributor, do we? — raeky t 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's obvious that most of us here don't understand the full amount of effort going into these restorations. The "fake water damage" and reconstruction of text and such sounds like we risk running into genuine copyright problems, even in countries that sanely omit "sweat of the brow" arguments. Some thoughts that come to mind:

When we don't know that an image has been lovingly reconstructed with great artistic initiative, and it superficially resembles the original PD version, we should not feel guilty for distributing it as PD.
However, such images could eventually run afoul of copyright complaints after they've been used somewhere (especially commercially, e.g. in a video game) making them less than ideal because we're not doing well to ensure that the reusers genuinely have free use. One way to protect against this is to get multiple images, especially, scans as raw as possible, so that reusers can carefully examine the different versions.
When we're specifically informed of significant changes made to the photo, if they sound creative enough, there's no choice but to recognize that. Though it's not the case here, still, unfortunately, there are some PD images that are kept so tightly under lock and key that nobody has a real picture of the original and we can't legitimately use the fooled-around version as PD. However, in order to get us to respect a copyright on what appears PD, someone has to tell us what the changes are, which opens the possibility that by stripping or redoing the altered regions something more like the original, or at least, definitely not copyrightable, can be made available. The restorer should have the obligation to tell us how, not just to say "it's been altered", if he expects us to believe this is a real issue - and if he expects his changes to be credible as an "artistic work" - to illustrate, we could have a user upload small sectors of the photo, and if we have no reason to think specifically that certain ones have been altered, someone can still stitch the ensemble together.
The ideal outcome, if we can obtain it, would be for the restorer to allow us to obtain the original raw scan for PD licensing, and then donate the lovingly altered/restored version as he sees fit, for example, with attribution requirements. It ahould be noted for the PD file that this other restored version exists, and vice versa. Wnt (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is saying, and I hope it wasn't interpreted as such that I was, that substantial reconstructions of missing parts of a damaged artwork wouldn't be copyrightable, but the argument is that faithful restorations of the artwork (that means minor changes to correct minor imperfections, like dust, a crease, a crack, a scratch) wouldn't constitute as enough to be copyrightable. Obviously if a chunk of a painting is missing and someone using references and past pictures repaints the missing section, even if it's done to look as close as possible to the original, that those changes would be copyrightable. But the main issue that Adam is bringing up is purely a sweat of the brow argument on the effort involved, and that has no legal weight in the United States, and likely none in the UK as well since it's never been tested in the court as others have pointed out already. The default position here for wikipedia probably should be restorations do not confer copyright, and put the burden of proof on the restorer to make the argument that there was actual creative new elements put into the artwork. Removal of a scratch from a negative isn't adding NEW creative content, that's the point I hope I was making. — raeky t 21:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for those who are interested, the png is here File:First colored senator and reps.png and the tiff is here File:17564u.tiff. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I might be able to support a JPEG version with a minor color correction to whiten up the paper some at full resolution as offered by the TIFF. I think there is probably sufficient EV for the image in these articles to warrant promotion. — raeky t 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to WP:FP so patience is appreciated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the LOC the yellowish version is a "digital file from original print." If that is the original color, why would we correct it? If we want a "whiter" (pardon the irony) version, why not use the version LOC describes as "digital file from color film copy slide" as it is "whiter"? [3] Would it just be simpler to use the restoration by Adam (png)? – Lionel ^(talk) 12:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam is making it difficult by trying to impose a copyright where none likely exists, and that's being worked out, a possible solution has been presented to him. The yellow is due to age, paper turns yellow as it ages, specifically paper that hasn't been acid buffered and is acid free. Likely at some point the LOC did treat it so it wouldn't age anymore but the yellowing is damage already done. When it comes to these kinds of things we generally expect some form of restoration to make it look more like it originally did, and other obvious damage removed (Dust, scratches, stains, etc..). That's why I said I could support it with MINOR restoration work, but probably not as is with no changes. — raeky t 12:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and converted Adam's restoration (png) to jpg and uploaded it. I used CC-BY-SA until the details can be sorted out--it doesn't matter for WP:FP. For good measure I uploaded Adam's png, too. But since we have the tiff I guess we should delete the png. What do you think? – Lionel ^(talk) 05:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question the source is linked to http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/Images/page_13/47a.html, but that shows this image with a white background, so why does it have a tan background here? Pine^✉ 04:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong source, actual link should be by the LOC id #: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/98501907/ — raeky t 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having not read the entire discussion above, I do not know who all the participants are. Yet Raeky's contention regarding copyright is actually open to rebuttal on two entirely separate bases. One is the "sweat of the brow" standard, which is so unusual that to the best of my knowledge it is unique to UK law. An alternate basis widely recognized internationally is whether the restoration itself involved significant creative decisions. For instance, this restoration of the massacre at Wounded Knee revealed four human remains and caused the Library of Congress to revise their catalog description. Naturally this discovery resulted in a conscious decision to restore the albumen print in ways that maximize the visiblity of the human bodies, which had been nearly invisible in the unrestored version. When one encounters a crude retouching attempt to conceal a politician's double chin, does one improve on the retouching or attempt to reconstruct the natural chin?[4] The amount of conscious decision-making that can go into a restoration that has basically one "right" result is described here,[5] and here[6] with the latter instance viewers interpret vastly different expressions from a few pixel changes in the eyes. There are times when a careful reconstruction includes consultation about meteorology[7] and analysis of over whether color bars (when present) are of actual value[8] or complex decisions to compensate for uneven scanner lighting or spinal distortion.[9][10] Does one preserve an ink smear as a historic printing error, or does one "clean" the smudged ink?[11] In this restoration the scan was so detailed that it had picked up the impression from an eraser rubbing that had gotten between the paper and the drafting board while the architect was filling in the background, and appeared in several places because the rubbing had moved while he shifted the paper: the original intention is pretty easy to intuit, yet there are strong arguments to be made either for restoring that intention or the actual image. In this image the photographer's intention is unknown, yet upon discovery that the background is a courthouse I made several conscious decisions to emphasize an interpretation that appealed to me--that the photograph was about the difference between law and justice. Manual restoration also reconstructs tree limbs, paper grain, and various other undertakings which, if done well, escape the notice of all but the most careful observers. In nearly every restoration where fade or yellowing exist, such as the one under discussion in the present nomination, a manual restoration involves the decision of whether to evoke a sense of newness, as here, or to eliminate certain distracting elements while maintaining an impression of oldness, as here. During my time as an editor advice came from a variety of people that enough creative decision making was going into a large portion of my work to justify copyright over the restorations; I uploaded them as public domain not because they could not qualify for copyright but in order to donate the labor and encourage digitization of more historically valuable works. The same is true of several other editors. It was a random view of the Bastille Day article that led me to this page, by the way, and had nothing to do with any of the other commenters. Durova⁴¹² 16:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically my point was that minor modifications in restoration is likely not copyrightable, extensive recreation of missing elements from damaged originals likely might be, and the rest is a very gray area and I think none of it has ever been brought up in a court. Adam was insisting to put his edits, even minor ones like this one, into CC copyright and asserting copyrights that he likely didn't have. As was pointed out to him by numerous editors at Jimbo's page and on the Common's mailing list that sweat of the brow likely wasn't even enforceable in the UK, and that many restorations are likely not copyrightable in the United States. There was a proposal for a copyright template for Adam's work poposed on Jimbo's page but I think the conversation died and it got archived before anything was worked out. I'm aware of many of your restoration works, and I appreciate your point of view but I'm fairly sure that MOST restorations of these public domain images would not qualify as granting the restorer copyright protection, except like I said in extreme recreation of missing sections of the original. Clone work, color corrections, removing age or minor damage, is unlikely unique enough to grant copyright. Unless your aware of some court decisions about this that I'm not, it's likely never been brought before a judge, so it's purely speculation if claiming copyright on these and then trying to sue to prevent unauthorized use would be upheld in court. Thats the only way to say for sure where the threshold point is here for restorations. Noone can stop you from claiming copyright on any of your works, but it boils down to what would stand up in court if you took it to court to prevent infringement. — raeky t 23:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is CC or PD for the purposes of this FP either status is free; and the restoration looks great. Raeky, do you think the pic now qualifies for your Support !vote? – Lionel ^(talk) 23:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have the source linked where you got Adam's restoration, that needs added, and Share Alike CC licensing is anything but free, it's EXTREMELY restrictive, and it's not what Adam released it under, I belive he released it under CC-BY, which is close to free, but not entirely free. So no, I can't support it as it is now. — raeky t 02:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Creative Commons is a free license. FP requires free content: if it were not free, I wouldn't be wasting everyone's time. In any event, I added the link and left a note for Adam about the license. I respect your opinion of course: I just hope you aren't penalizing me because of circumstances beyond me control. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Share Alike is one of the most restrictive clauses we allow in our licensing, it states "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." It restricts commercial use, where it was once public domain it is now restricted. And by WP:AGF I'm not going to accuse you of not knowing how to use license templates, but clearly the image Adam released, at http://adamcuerden.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d56h6gm (which is the link you need to use, which has licensing info, not a DIRECT link to the image, per our policies) states it's released under CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) not what you have it listed as, so you have the WRONG LICENCE for the image, that was the point I was trying to make. The whole issue is starting to rub me the wrong way, it's a silly fight, as far as I remember Adam retired from editing wikipedia because of this same fight in the past, where he wanted to apply copyright where it probably isn't due, and absoute horrid behavior, which he of course showed here in this thread. So as far as I'm concerned the project is probably better off without his battleground attitude, even if that means we can't use his images. But if you want to use his image, you NEED TO USE THE CORRECT LICENSE HE RELEASED IT UNDER AND USE THE CORRECT LINK TO THE IMAGE THAT DISPLAYS THE LICENSE. Ok? As far as I'm concerned Im done with this thread, between this, the e-mail bombing to the lists and Jimbo's tak page this whole issue has occupied far to many peoples time for far to long and by using his image your just prolonging and provoking this fight to continue, with all due respect. — raeky t 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for AGF, but as it turns out I'm not well versed in license tags, and a relative newcomer to images in general. Anyway, thanks for giving me the correct link and license, I've fixed the image page.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: in my opinion there is no any problem and should not be a problem because it has good encyclopadic value. Justice007 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]