Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skull reconstruction Embolotherium.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
This seems a bit too close to the copyrighted figure to be permissible: http://research.amnh.org/paleontology/embolotherium-andrewsi FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- This seems... okay... no good argument to me but possible a reason. If there is no other way, then it is just so. But I can tell, each line was made by myself and the source of this is known and written down, that's an important point (there is a second source: Matthew C. Mihlbachler: Species Taxonomy, Phylogeny, and Biogeography of the Brontotheriidae (Mammalia: Perissodactyla). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 311, 2008, pp. 1-475 (p. 8) but a bit off, since there is a complete life restoration of the head). To be very close to the original is not a flaw, it is the only way to be sure that the drawing or reconstruction has scientific value and ist trustable for the reader or user of wp. A big part of private made life restorations of dinosaurs, fossil birds or mammals on commons are without any source. They are sprung from the imagination of the drawers, often combined with scientific errors, based on older descriptions etc. That's why they represent original research, it is not a problem to upload or use them on commons, but it should be one on the wp.. My two cents...Sincerly --DagdaMor (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah; I'm sorry if it has to go, but there is a fine line to walk when it comes to Commons:Derivative works. Perhaps there are some other views on this, but the fact is, the original is someone's copyrighted artwork, if something is traced directly after it, it is derivative of that artwork. So we should try to make drawings based on other drawings as different as possible, while still reflecting the source. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Who determines this fine line? You say This seems ...., so you're not sure about this? And in the case that no further one will respond and the picture is deleted, is this a clear act of administrative arbitrariness? The scientific work is hardly imaginable without any derivative work, it is important that the sources are indicated. What does not go are life restorations without any indication of sources and so far original research. Is there any way to ask the amnh directly to see if they have problems with this derivative work, or even Matthew C. Mihlbachler..? So this fine line could be defined more precisely... Sincerly --DagdaMor (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- If this had been a free-hand drawing, where the lineart diverged somewhat from the original, I think there would be more leeway. But I tried overlaying the images in Photoshop, and it is an exact match.[1] The lines appear to have been traced directly. Tracings are problematic, unless the original artwork is general enough to be copyright-free, but the life-restoration outline is equal parts science and artistry, so it is still copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Of course, I used the original as a blueprint because of the proportions (this is a skull reconstruction). But may be this was my mistake and is problematic. I think I will make a freehand drawing in the next few weeks... I have to think about the best way (but the proportions I will not be able to change significantly, it should be scientifically correct, and I have no brontothere skull...). So for me is EOD here, thanks for your input. Sincerely --DagdaMor (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- The skull itself is of course a solid object and can't be changed whatever you base it on, but there is a lot of wiggle-room for the soft tissue. No one knows the exact shape of the snout, the ears, eyes, nostrils, etc., other than that tbey might have been "rhino-like". Mihlbachler, who proposed the giant snout, even explicitly that the "the true position of the nostrils is uncertain". See the discussion here (a good place to post future restorations for review):[2] FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Of course, I used the original as a blueprint because of the proportions (this is a skull reconstruction). But may be this was my mistake and is problematic. I think I will make a freehand drawing in the next few weeks... I have to think about the best way (but the proportions I will not be able to change significantly, it should be scientifically correct, and I have no brontothere skull...). So for me is EOD here, thanks for your input. Sincerely --DagdaMor (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- If this had been a free-hand drawing, where the lineart diverged somewhat from the original, I think there would be more leeway. But I tried overlaying the images in Photoshop, and it is an exact match.[1] The lines appear to have been traced directly. Tracings are problematic, unless the original artwork is general enough to be copyright-free, but the life-restoration outline is equal parts science and artistry, so it is still copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Who determines this fine line? You say This seems ...., so you're not sure about this? And in the case that no further one will respond and the picture is deleted, is this a clear act of administrative arbitrariness? The scientific work is hardly imaginable without any derivative work, it is important that the sources are indicated. What does not go are life restorations without any indication of sources and so far original research. Is there any way to ask the amnh directly to see if they have problems with this derivative work, or even Matthew C. Mihlbachler..? So this fine line could be defined more precisely... Sincerly --DagdaMor (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah; I'm sorry if it has to go, but there is a fine line to walk when it comes to Commons:Derivative works. Perhaps there are some other views on this, but the fact is, the original is someone's copyrighted artwork, if something is traced directly after it, it is derivative of that artwork. So we should try to make drawings based on other drawings as different as possible, while still reflecting the source. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
