User:Mdd/Derived work

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Image:Karl Popper.svg[edit]

For the same reason:

COM:DW, COM:PS. Commons is not an art community and it is a copyright violation since it is derived from a copyrighted photograph (you cannot circumvent copyright this way; if you use a photo as a template to take the characteristic elements and make a painting out of it, you need a license and need to pay license fees, since you are building upon the work of the photographer. And such pictures are strictly forbidden in Wikipedia anyway, as they are original research and a crime against encyclopedic integrity. --rtc 11:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have some problems with all of these arguments:
  1. These pictures are not derived but inspired on the photographs. There is no mechanistic process used here. Every line is a new choice of the artist. Each new illustration is unique.
  2. It's since the Renaissance common that artists use reflections of reality to create a new image. Most important example is the work of Andy Warhol of Marilyn Monrou
  3. Every image and every illustration can be seen as a work of art.
  4. Every image in Wikipedia has to be original. There is no law and crime here.
  5. It seems to me, that according to your rules all illustrations should be forbitten. And even every original pictures is questionable as original research.
I wonder if there is a law in Wikipedia, that forbits artists to draw new illustrations inspired on current pictures. I like to stipulate: the qualiy of these kinds of illstration are questionable. I'm not aware of any legal items here. But probably you have more experience here. Maybe you can tell me about similar cases? - Mdd 13:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there are technical illustrations created by users, but as long as they are mere representations of some technical idea for which similar illustrations already exist (such illustrations, if of average simplicity, are not copyrightable), then it is perfectly okay. It is a question of whether artistic or technical elements are the primary subject of the image. Your pictures are all artistic, not technical. Your pictures are certainly inspired by the photos, but they are also derived from them. A mere inspiration would have been to create something new instead of merely basing it on the photo, such that, if the photo and the new work are put besides each other, no apparent similarity is visible. A similar case is Commons:Deletion_requests/The_images_of_User:André_Koehne. --rtc 15:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Most of the images of the case, you mention here, were not deleted...!?
But more important: I think you are forgetting some things. Formally:
  1. These illustrations are inspired on copyright pictures
  2. These illustrations are derived from them
  3. ... and these illustrations fit the discription of original works of art, made by a professional artist, who has been making this line of work for some 15 years.
Now the thing is, that both the inspiration and originality are rather big. The derivation, however, is rather small. Here a 40.000k JPEG bitmap file is transformed into a 5.000k SVG file with only about 50 lines. The technical transformation here is also rather big. If you really want to talk about legal considerations, I think all these arguments should be taken into consideration.
Now it seems to me that there is only one tiny argument for deletion here and seven arguments for keeping this picture. - Mdd 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Your calculations are nonsensical. Copyright talks about creative elements of a work, not about the way they are encoded in digital file formats. In essence, you copy the characteristic features from the photo by stylizing them with rough lines. If we try to think your picture without these characteristic features, nothing but senseless lines remain. That is, this is a case of a derivative work that could hardly be more clear. As long as an apparent similarity is visible if the photo and the new work are put besides each other, it is a derived work. We do not need to discuss about that. Being "a professional artist, who has been making this line of work for some 15 years" does not make it less a derivative work. --rtc 10:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Remember:the photo is a copy of the original, which is a person. So is the design. Havang 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Nonsensical = onzinnig, kolderiek, gek, vreemd...!?
Again Rtc's word doesn't make any sense to me.
  1. I didn't copy the charateristic feartures of the picture, I copied the charateristic facial recognition points of the persons.
  2. Characteristic features of a picture are the composition, tone, contrast, lightning resulting in a typical realistic portret of a person.
  3. Characteristic features of a person are its face and expression, shown in multiple pictures.
  4. My computer animations are artist impressions, highly abstract, minimalistic, with a typical own style. Almost the opposite of the realistic objective photographical representation.
So first of all. Your try to eliminate that there are more criterea then just "derived pictures": inspiriation, artistic transformation, artistic freedom & the technical transformation...
And second: the characteristic features of the picture where not derived. There is no copyright on the face and expression of a real person. - Mdd 13:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a copyright on the photo of the face and expression of a real person. You have not copied the face and expression (you're not a pantomime, after all, are you), but you copied their photographic projection. This projection of this factial expression is a) unique (hence, a characteristic feature of the photo) and b) copyrighted. You derived your drawing from it. Please stop denying the obvious. --rtc 13:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The obvious is that pictures of Wolkers now appearing in Dutch journals are all look-alikes. Havang 14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear RTC, It seems to me that you just try to MAKE UP YOUR OWN NEW RULES..!?
  • First: Show me the source where copyright is so specific written down.
  • Second: You make no sense. First you tell face and expression are protected, then you try to state that I didn't copy them...!?
  • Third: It's clear and almost proven here below, that I did recreate the facial expression. William Avery here below is confinced that I used an other picture.
  • And forth. I never denied I inspired myselve on a picture... this situation is far from obvious.
You still seems to pretend that, the "derived" argumented is all that counts. - Mdd 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
When I said that face and expression are copyrighted, I of course didn't mean that they are actually so; I was referring to their photographic projection, of course. So I wanted to make that clear. You are really splitting hairs here. As an intelligent person, you have understood perfectly well what I mean, so I'm not going on with that. William Avery did not look close enough. That can happen. It is not a proof that it is not a derived work. If someone denies similarities if shown your work and the photo besides each other, then that is perhaps a "proof". I am not making up "my own" new rules, I am merely trying to explain to you in detail the conflicts of your drawings with copyright. I am sorry; I have no source where copyright is so specific written down. --rtc 20:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:Gerard Heymans.svg is based on a copyright free picture, see here here. So this picture should not be listed here. - Mdd 20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Image:Gerard Heymans.svg is not copyright free. The photographer is not listed, but I suppose he did live for more than four years after publishing the photo? Even if we make the incorrect assumption for a moment that the picture does not have a copyright anymore, why do we need the user-generated replacement if we have the original? --rtc 10:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
      • At this moment the picture is copyright free, and so is my drawing. - Mdd 21:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Designs inspired on copyrighted photographs are original work and have there own copyright. Havang 21:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Inspiration is free. - .Aiko 13:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The Popper image is clearly derivative of the book cover w:Image:Karl Popper.jpg. William Avery 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I inspired myselve on this picture which I wrote down (in Dutch) at the original description page.
This is one more sign, that I created a new image almost independent from the original picture. - Mdd 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not. If William Avery sees the actual source image, he will be convinced even more, not less, that it is a derived work. --rtc 20:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The "inspiration" from one source picture is down in black and white and can be used in evidence in a court case. If the author had been wise enough to say they were inspired by the many images of Popper they had seen, the fact that viewers have different opinions on the identity of a supposed "original" image, might have been enough to establish it as OK.
Does any artist ever exactly knows, what his inspiration is? I do know that when I draw that image, I was aware that Popper had become a very old man and I was asking myselve how you can give expression to that idea? Which lines would I have to draw to bring this into the picture? I'm also aware that I have seen multiple pictures of Popper before. And I have a general idea in my mind what he looks like. And in the drawing process I am working to recreate that image.
I do know that even the philosophers of art don't agree on the artistic process, and the question: Does the artist draws what he sees, or does he sees what he draws? - Mdd 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Nicely put and more importantly the sort of statement one should use to accompany an original artwork. Not "I based it on / derived it from / was inspired by such and such copyrighted item." Hello lawyer, bye bye money. --Simonxag 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this feed back. I guess it doesn't help, that I'm working both as a artist, designer and scientist. As a writer of scientific articles I quote other authors, giving them credit in the references... but I quote only just these words I want to write the story, I already have in my mind. Now I used certain existing copyrighted pictures in my artistic process. I kind of automatically wanted to give them some of the same credits.
When I drew these pictures I never gave it much thoughts, that I was making minimalistic line drawings, which I've have made thousands in the past decades... but very little like these portraits. The typical "yellow paper and gray lines" is a very minimalistic technique I discovered a decade ago inspired on the blue yellow works of Matisse. Should I have written it all down here...!? I guess nothing matters anymore I someone says the two magic words "derived work". - Mdd 23:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I deliver frequently photographic pictures to be used as model for a group of painters. They all use it for making paintings, not one is alike, although all of them ressemble the photograph; several of them have been sold for more or lesds money, always the painter is considered the artist having the copyright of the painting. I as photographer state here that the designs are original work inspired on a photograph. Havang 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And even if you were the head of the copyright office, it wouldn't change the facts. --rtc 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
@Havank. There is something I definetly don't understand. The situation you describe seems almost the same. Only now I am the painter (designer/ drawer) and not the photographer. And with the Popper image I stated as source:
  • Source: Eigen werk, geïnspireerd op een bestaande foto, zie hier
  • (In English) Source: Own work inspired on an existing picture, see here
As an artist I consider to have the copyright of the drawing, given the original very specific own kind of explicit minimalistic computer-animation...!? - Mdd 09:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I am saying: you really are the artist: the designs are your original work and have to be keeped on wiki. Good luck. Havang 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course he is the artist and of course it is his original work. Yet this original work is a derived work. Without building fundamentally on the photographer's work he wouldn't have done it in this way. He owes royalties to the photographer . --rtc 09:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussing is losing all rational/legal perspective[edit]

This discussion has turned into a rather interesting discussion about "original work" versus "direved work". However, the user Rtc, who brought this discussion up, hereby is using to many fantasy arguments. That is why I want to make a clear statement here, that I think this is not aceptable. I'm refering to the following arguments, broough forward in the past discussion, but as the comments show, are highly questionable:

  1. "There is a copyright on the photo of the face and expression of the real person." Comment: No copyright law is that explicit.
  2. "Your calculations are nonsensical... this... case... could hardly more clear." Comment: When the artist (me) starts explaining that there is more in copyright law then the "derived work" idea, I should not be call an idiot.
  3. "The copyright free picture nl:Afbeelding:Gerard Heymans.JPG is not free, because the photographer is not listed and could be alive." Comment: In the Dutch Wikipedia this is already taken into consideration and the picture is etablished as copyright free. This can be questioned again, but at the moment there is a status quo.
  4. William Avery see an other picture as original, and he is still right because If he sees the original he will be convinced even more. Comment: user:Rtc has no authority to speak on user William Avery his behave.
  5. "Of course he is the artist and of course it is his original work. Yet this original work is a derived work." Comment: No copyright law shall determine "an original work as direved". A picture is either the one or the other.

I think this situation is becomming rather embarrasing, that user:Rtc continues to fantasize all he wants. I think this is a serious matter, that earns serious consideration. For me it is even not clear, which law in Wikicommons has to be obeyed. At the moment it looks like every illustrator is a sitting duck here. - Mdd 13:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we have the Copyright Law of the United States of America. I don't think that Rtc could make any connection between what he was saying and this law. Or maybe I'm mistaken!? - Mdd 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)