On 9 July 2012 14:37, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: It was always my understanding that the issue in that case was the lack of creative work required in the reproduction; i.e. a straight on photo of a 2D medium. (I think they also did some touching up?? but nothing major). Comparatively, some of Adam's work exhibits a much greater level of skill and creativity in reconstructing damaged images. I'd say that the NPG's inability to demonstrate requisite creativity to claim "sweat of the brow" doesn't outright undermine Adam's situation. Regardless; why are we being such dicks? As diametrically opposed to copyright as some of us are, it genuinely doesn't hurt anyone for those works to be tagged CC-BY-SA. They can still be reused widely, Adam gets credit for his hard work, and everyone is happy. This smacks of cutting off our noses to spite our faces, all on principle... It also undermines many of our strong points about copyright laws/reform. Tom

I do believe that Adam's work is enough for him to have some credit for it. If any of us edit an image, we do receive the credit (there is even a template for it: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Retouched_picture ). So, why so much trouble to credit him? Can't we do like we do with multiple licensed pictures (for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redwikiheart-10,8M-heartonly.png )? _____ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>* On 9 July 2012 10:46, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 9 July 2012 20:56, Cary Bass &lt;bastique.ml(a)bastique.com&gt; wrote: Absolutely, and it would be better if reusers credited restorers, because that gives the correct provenance of an image. Adam absolutely should be credited. And liars. For sweat of the brow to stick in such cases in the UK, someone has to win a case. - d.