Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Perle-2b.jpg

< Commons:Deletion requests
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Richard_Perle-2b.jpg

edit

According to User:Rama/Personalities drawings#Multiple source, these drawings were based on several photographs. According to Commons:Image casebook#Drawings based on photographs: "Drawings based on several photos are derivative works of all of them, and permission from the authors of all copyrighted photos would be needed." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Typical copyright paranoia. Based on your statement, we are to delete all drawing of dead persons when no free photograph are existing... Esby (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you want to propose an exception to the rules here, allowing {{Fair use}} of copyrighted photos for recently deceased persons? In supposedly copylawless Israel, a photographer sued the engraver of a medal to the memory of Rabin; the photographer won the case, and was awarded substantial damages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep me me out of your w:WP:POINT, you said 'rules', you just invoked a casebook and interpretated it in a very narrowed way to the letter. I'd assume the case here is refering to a drawing that contains identifiable parts from different photographs. Esby (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Dec#Wrongly decided deletion debates? - what is wrong with following laws to the letter? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"what is wrong with following laws to the letter?" You really want me to follow policies to the letter and block you for trying to create (again?) disruption on Commons? I believe there was a huge thread about that attitude of you on the AN. The debate you linked shows there is no consensus on what should be done in theory, yes for known pictures, it is obvious that reproducting the Che posture, from the famous photograph in a drawing infringe the copyright status of the phograph, but it's not easy do decide that for non trivial case. I think you are overestimating the 'pictures used for documentation' vs pictures used to replicate a copyrighted work by drawing it. Esby (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have double standards. For how else can one reconcile your vote here and your decision to delete in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KurtGerstein.jpg? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read again what I wrote here and there, and stop saying idiocy like this one? I don't have any double standard or anything like that: Either you can establish the drawing is derivated from one clearly identified picture and we'll have to delete it, either you can't, since using several references pictures for documentation will mostly create originality and the picture will be ok for Commons. Esby (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We know it is a derivative, but Rama declines to give his sources. My guess is that he would have used video frames from interview situations, especially for the profile views. Maybe he flipped the image. Commons does not usually have the policy to wait for a rightsholder to recognize his work here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Clarification: Drawings of dead people (whether there is a free photograph or not) may (or may not) be public domain or free licensed for a great variety of reasons. That is irrelevent. What is relevent is that IF a particular drawing is based on a particular photograph, and if so, what the copyright status of the photograph is. One cannot free license a drawing of a copyrighted photograph by someone else; see Commons:Derivative works. If any of the drawings are of particular copyrighted photographs, they must be deleted from Commons as copyright violations. If the poses/views are the original creations of the artist based only on the appearance of the original person informed by photographs but not based on any particular photograph, the artist may license them as they wish. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Pieter Kuiper misunderstands the meaning of the casebook. The casebook is about derivative work. There is a difference between a derivative work and documentation. Merely looking at a photograph to known whether Richard Perle wear a beard, has a roundish face or not, wears hippy clothes, this is not derivative work. In the interpretation of Pieter Kuiper, drawing at all would become illegal because whatever you do, in the modern world, your memory has been contaminated by copyrighted works. This is copyright paranoia pushed to the absurd, and uncharacteristic of the very casual, almost cavalier approach that Pieter Kuiper usually supports when it comes to uploading images. Rama (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not paranoia, see this recent US case. You did not just draw a beardless man with a round face. Why won't you give us links to your "documentation"? Commons should treat this in the same way as unsourced maps. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no connection between these cases. The image of Obama is claimed to be a case of Fair use, and it is a derivative work of an iconic photograph. The images of Richard Perle are not derivative works of anything and are copyrighted to me alone. Rama (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a general problem with drawings and I started a dicsussion on Commons_talk:Image_casebook#Drawings about drawings because I think that either the casebook is wrong or some DR's are wrong. If anyone has sources that says that (or when) it is ok to create drawings "based on" (whatever that means) copyrighted photos as long as you "pick" from several photos then please add the source on the discussion so we can correct the mistake. I think we should sort that out before we close this DR. --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a standard copyright issue. You are free to make your own renditions of things in reality, including people's faces. You are not free to copy another's renditions. If you write a research paper, you have to be careful to take the facts from your sources, but not copyrightable text or even less literal copyrightable elements. Working from multiple pictures makes it easier not to copy one, and there's not a whole lot of copyrightable elements in a headshot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. These drawings are made based uplon photographs. Without those photographs, we cannot determine how much these are a derivative work. Drawings made from existing images (photos, paintings, movies) are derivative works. Kameraad Pjotr 19:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Richard_Perle-2b.jpg&oldid=46271870"