Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jacques Hamel Moubine.jpg

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:Jacques Hamel Moubine.jpg

Derivative work of this picture Léna (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per Commons rules which seem not to allow this kind of derivative work of a protected work. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 16:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

  Il n'est en rien interdit pour un artiste de s'inspirer d'une photographie... Vanoot59 (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  Il s'agit d'un travail dérivé basé sur une photographie, lire Commons:Œuvre_dérivée et Commons:Guide_de_référence#Dessins_bas.C3.A9s_sur_des_photographies : une telle œuvre ne répond pas aux exigences de Commons sur les licences. Si l'auteur de la photographie décidait de la placer sous licence libre ou dans le domaine public, l'import du dessin (et de la photographie, du coup) deviendraient possibles. El pitareio (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Request the end of the otrs procedure. Olivier LPB (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Olivier LPB : Autorisation OTRS du peintre confirmée, maintenant si cette image est acceptable ou non sur Commons est du ressort de la communauté. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Que l'auteur de l'oeuvre dérivée accepte les licences libres ne changent pas que l'image initiale est une oeuvre protégée par le droit d'auteur jusqu'à preuve du contraire. HaguardDuNord (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per COM:Derivative works, as the level of similarity is very high between the two media, and as the drawing does not contain "sufficient new, creative content" to be considerate as a derivative work itself. Kumkum (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  Seul la position du prêtre est inspiré de la photographie ; ni les couleurs, ni le fond, ni le contexte, etc. A qui de décider que c'est une œuvre dérivée ou non ? Vanoot59 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  Position du corps, geste, traits du visage, regard... Soit plus de la moitié de la peinture, donc oui, ça semble dépasser beaucoup l'inspiration. HaguardDuNord (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  Je veux dire que c'est plus proche de l'hommage, comme le serait une caricature... La position est la même mais le prêtre est ici auréolé, les jeux fermé, semblant être dans une sorte de béatitude, devant un fond noir... Il n'est plus simplement en train de lire comme sur la photo... Le fair use empèche ici la suppression, comme pour une parodie... Vanoot59 (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  Bonjour Vanoot59. Simplement, non. Cette peinture est un travail dérivé, qui recopie la composition d'une photo soumise au droit d'auteur, qui elle est un travail original. Et le fair use ne s'applique pas sur Wikimedia Commons, et est interdit sur Wikipédia par une prise de décision communautaire. Vous pouvez toujours prendre connaissance des pages Commons:Fair use/fr Aide:Licences des fichiers importés. Cordialement, -- Fʊɠỉtɾoŋ ^{‘‘talk’’}, 17:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: Derivative work of copyright picture. --Nouill (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per COM:Derivative works, exact same composition as the original photo. -- Fʊɠỉtɾoŋ ^{‘‘talk’’}, 17:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep the Otrs has give the riht, The file is in good quality Olivier LPB (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per COM:Derivative works. Tant que le nom du photographe de l'original manque, et l'autorisation de ce photographe manque, l'autorisation du peintre est insuffisant. Jurisprudence: nl:} https://www.vn.nl/fotos-schilderen-plagiaat-of-fair-use/ --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC) PS. Si le photographe se fait connaître, il pourra télecharger la photo originelle, et alors on n'aura même pas besoin de cette peinture. La photo source de [1] vient du site web diocèse de Rouen: [2], c'est une photo dans lequel le micro n'a pas été supprimé par photoshop. Il y a une copie dans LA CROIX qui est signé DR (Diocèse de Rouen?). --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  DR = Droits réservés, souvent utilisé par les journaux quand ils piquent une photo et qui ne savent pas qui en est l'auteur. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  (conflit d'édition) Pour la mention DR, voir w:fr:Droits réservés : cela veut dire que La Croix a utilisé la photo sans savoir à qui l'attribuer. El pitareio (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Conserver The file is in good quality Mike Coppolano (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Attendre. J'ai envoyé ce soir un message au site du Diocèse de Rouen, avec mes condoléances et la demande de me mettre en contact avec le photographe. --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  Havang(nl), contacter la paroisse serait peut-être plus utile ? Ils doivent toutefois être submergés de courriels (comme l'évêché), Vanoot59 (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Initial closure: Kept: has OTRS ticket. --INeverCry 00:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  @INeverCry: hi, the issue here was not about attribution, but about a probable fraud as the picture is almost the same as a photograph taken by someone else. Kumkum (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  If fraud is suspected, the OTRS agent handling the ticket, @Thibaut120094: , would be better able to address that concern than non-OTRS members who can't review the ticket. Thibaut120094 states above that the permission is from the painter. Thibaut120094 is an experienced admin and OTRS member, so I would suggest asking him about this. The ticket could also be posted for review at COM:OTRS/N. Léna has already brought this up at my talk, so further questions for me should be posted there. But I'm not an OTRS agent either. I saw an OTRS ticket processed by a highly trusted OTRS agent, and I trusted in his judgement, since he placed the OTRS ticket on the image after this DR was opened. INeverCry 03:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  OTRS agents are trusted by definition.

  They receive and handle permissions, but they don't substitute the community for DR.

  As such, I defer the closure. --Dereckson (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  For me the authorization of the painter is enough, because the original photo is just an inspiration not a copy. You can see it in the details. So the OTRS is enough for a keep of the photo Olivier LPB (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  The page Commons:Derivative works is very clear on the definition of what a derivative work is. The painting reproduces the layout of the photo, and the angle of view is exactly the same. We cannot say the painting was just “inspired” by the photo. Therefore, this is a copyright infringement and the picture has to be deleted if the photographer does not react. ▸Fugitron^{‘‘❗’’}, 20:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. 10 days after my message, there has been still no response from the website of the Diocèse de Rouen. Permission of the photographer is still lacking. If the photographer gives the permission later, the picture may be restored. / Dix jours après mon message, il n'y a toujours pas de reponse du site du Diocèse de Rouen. Il manque toujours la prermission du photographe. Si cette permission arrivera par la suite, l'image pourra être restauré. --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per Havang(nl). --Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)