Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Waltercolor

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Files uploaded by Waltercolor (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Sad to say that these portraits can't be hosted on Commons per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Drawings_based_on_photographs, as they all appear to be hand-drawn copies of specific photographs. There's some creative alterations to the hair and clothing, but the poses are identical when superimposed over the original.

Belbury (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Abusive accusation. It's inspired and there are enough alterations. In all cases, it's hard to determine a unique conclusion about ALL files, so each file should be treated separately. What's more, this one might be in the public domain. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, definitely, these should be reviewed case by case and each one kept or deleted as appropriate.
    If the Lily Pastré portrait is based on a public domain photograph, we should keep the drawing, and also upload the original. In context on the host site, https://www.archives13.fr/n/cycle-les-provencaux-dans-l-histoire/n:178 says © Photo Lily Pastré - DR - it also appears at https://acjp.fr/uploads/articles/5ac17894a8dff76e150b359b65a20423.pdf credited to Coll. Famille Pastré, in neither case with any year for the first date of publication.
    I disagree that there are "enough alterations", for the images listed above. The Commons copyright summary I link to says that If you yourself have made a drawing based on a copyrighted photo, you need the permission of the photographer before uploading your drawing here - if the underlying depiction of a person's face is a tracing or close copy of a single specific copyrighted image, redrawing the hair or depicting different clothing doesn't change the derivative aspect of the face.
    Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Stephencdickson was a similar case from 2018 where a Commons artist had apparently been given the (bad) advice that tracing and redrawing copyrighted 20th century portraits was sufficient to remove the copyright from them. Belbury (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Belbury : Tracing is not a derivative work, it's a new work, cause there do not exist any tracings in a photography. There are no lines separating spaces. There are only values of contrast and color and it's human being who interpret some tresholds as limits of a form and synthetise the information of a human face by a lot of parameter (yes natural intelligence existed before the artificial one).
    The drawing by lines to render graphically a perceived limit of contrast or color is only a subjective decision of the person which draws. I recommend you try yourself to redraw a photography and you will see that you can get a poor result. The only derivative works that could be applied to a photography are filters or AI applied on images. These actions can be reproduced and will always give the same result. They also cannot be applied without the model.
    When I make a portrait, I first look at all the documents I have from a person to see what are the specific patterns of the face, this first analyze is somewhere the same mechanism that allows face Ident softwares to identify your face to unlock you phone.
    I generally superimpose several photographies from the same person made by different photographers at different times and places to see if the patterns of the face match. And guess what ? They generally do, because it's the same person and the features of the face remain the same, whatever light, accessories, clothes, haircut... That manual face Ident done, I reproduce it on my drawing and, in fact, these features will nearly be the same on the photography and on the drawing, because they characterize the person.
    What happens next ? I usually spend hours to draw and color the portrait, choosing carefully which kind of tool and colors I use to render the way I perceive the person. I also read carefully the text of the biography to know who is the person, why is she notable, what is or was her life. Sometimes, I do not grasp the person and I'm not able to render the portrait. Sometimes I restart completely the drawing on another day. Sometimes, I finish the drawing but do not publish it cause I'm not satisfied.
    My drawings look like the person and are based on a primary source which is a photography ? Yes, because I believe portraits on an encyclopedia should represent that precise person, not represent another person and not represent any average person. The graphical portrait should give the proof that it is somewhere based, either on my personal meeting of this person or based on an objective document produced by a witness (a photography by the photographer).
    Your main argument is : photographers express a big personal artistic value on their photographies and artist make objective copies with poor artistic value by only changing details.
    I believe the contrary. I believe in most cases, photographers make objective copies of the visible world and artists completely reinterpret what they see by drawing and painting.
    What does the photograph bring as specific features that any other photographer could not have brought by photographying the same person with the same device in the same position ? Generally few, and I usually see that specificities and do not retain these details in my drawing or change that personal part brought by the photographer to replace it by my point of view. As an illustrator, I can select which forms I will treat graphically with the suitable technique of tracing and crawing a line is a way to connect forms which simply does not exist in photography.
    That's because, how said G. K. Chesterton, art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.
    My portraits are not obtained by means that are reproductible like filters, photo editing software, AI, but by a graphic mean that is personal, not reproductible and that renders the correct pattern of a face with accentuations on some parts of the face like eyes, mouth, (I believed you do not see such details but I do), so I claim that there is no "copyright" infringement for a reality that is common to all of us and not specifically produced by the photographer (I'm a daily photographer too and like photographying a lot).
    The traits of a person do not belong to the photographer but to the person itself and a photographer cannot claim he added something to the pattern of a face.
    The expression of the person on the drawing comes from the artistic arrangement of the lines (and lines do not exist in a photography) and give a personal point of view about the person which is not in the photography used as a primary source.
    Concerning your strict rules to draw a portrait for Commons that are : it should not refer to a photography, or if based on a photography it should operate enough changes (which kind of changes ? deformations ?), I do not recommend to create chimeras for an encyclopedia which is factual and based on a good sourcing.
    In fact, and given the numerous attempts to do well for drawing missing portraits for biographies on Wikipedia, should we not conclude that it's simply impossible to satisfy to such demandings (and I believe it's also written to make our projects of illustrating biographies impossible to realize) ?
    Should your severe resquests be realisable, would they render people's look in graphic design ? I believe it's only possible with AI applied to images. But changing and angle or calculating a statistical portrait can only be based on information that feeds the AI and the photographies will still be used as a basis. It's simply the sensation of infringing or not the copyright which is different if you trust in machines you feel creative and not in persons like artists you feel as servile reproductors.
    I am a natural intelligence and I bring you the best for these portraits without harming anyone.
    In fact, please quote me with at least ten examples of drawings rendering correctly a portrait by following your rules, and I will learn from them how to draw correctly for Commons and redraw all my portraits in that way.
    But I doubt you'll find them. I'm waiting for these examples.
    Waltercolor (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Drawings based on photographs sets out Commons' view on such works: a drawing based on multiple photographs requires a judgment call to be made on whether the work is derivative (File:KGerstein.jpg is given as an example of one that was considered not to infringe any copyrights), but a drawing based on a single photograph is automatically considered to be a derivative of that work.
    The only drawings of yours that I've raised for discussion here are those which (to my eye) appear to be based on a single specific and copyrighted photograph. Some more than others, though, and you are welcome to correct me if some of these in fact draw from multiple sources as their inspiration.
    It's possible that French law for such derivative works is different from the US law that Commons follows. Belbury (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I understand the interrogation but following this way, every new piece of art can be considered as inspired by a former one. Indeed, art is matter of inspiration. In the present case, you can't consider the creation as simple copy without inspiration because the view seems similar, and of course, if the subject of the photo is the same, it's normal it has similarities. Moreover, each picture should be considered by individually, and for example, the first one you present as a proof (Barbara Martin) is too different to be considered as copy. --Lupin~fr (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears to be a straightforward case of COM:DW. If you think Commons policy does not accurately reflect the law about derivative works, or that the way our rules are applied creates a slippery slope to the deletion of all artworks, a good place to make that argument would be at Commons talk:Derivative works or one of the village pumps. As it stands, an illustration that appears to reproduce another copyrighted artwork (such as a photo), is considered a DW. Remember, we're not just talking about use on Commons or Wikipedia -- these images must be licensed for any use or modification by anyone at any time, forever. These images simply don't have that license because the original artist hasn't released them. It's a huge disappointment, I know; if I put in the effort to produce these in good faith, I'd be frustrated, too (as I have been when some of my photographs were deleted before I understood things like freedom of panorama). I commend your work, but unfortunately we just can't host the ones that are clear derivatives. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worry. I'm a professional and bins of artists, graphic designers and especially architects are full of dead projects for any reasons.
    What I'm asking for @Rhododendrites is: do you have at least 10 examples of graphic portraits designed for illustrating WP biographies that you accepted ? I want to have a look on them and see if I can do the same.
    If it appears that nobody can create portraits with such restrictive rules, we must change the rules or abandon the participation to wikiunseen like projects. It's not only about a couple of drawings deleted, it's about how the articles look and if we can do something or not.
    For me a graphic portrait must represent the person itself, not another person, and not any person. It must be backed on the proof that the person has been seen by the artist (live drawing) or photographied by the artist (but then of course, I would rather upload my photo) or drawn from an existing photo. If the last solution is considered at 99,5% copyright infringement, it should not be proposed. It's not a solution.
    One option could be to draw police sketches, identikit pictures, but frankly, I will not loose time for this.
    Concerning the permission asked to the author of the photography, do you have somewhere tips about how to ask the permission ? Do you propose to ask permission before deletion ?
    I also desperately search the precise rules about when the drawings are considered to be not derivated. If the treshold of derivation/no derivation occurs at the level when the portrait doesn't look anymore to the person represented, don't keep the rules it would be illogical. We are not here to draw chimeras. It is not encyclopedic and people get enough information on Google about how the person looks without any copyright being infringed.
    Waltercolor (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that, if I understand correctly, if there is a significant difference between French law and US law on this such that they are legal in France but cannot be hosted on Commons, you may be able to upload them locally to the French Wikipedia. I'd have to defer to frwiki regulars on that, though. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What part of French law makes this legal? Non-commercial use in the U.S. is almost certainly legal due to fair use, but that is different than not being derivative at all. Not sure I've seen a strong reference for this claim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing that point on Les Sans PAges. French law is restrictive about reproduction and includes drawings in the processes to reproduce a work. This is an old law, and of course, encyclopedias and dictionaries existed far before photography was invented and they were all illustrated with drawings. One illustrator even asked for deletion of her own work because she feared about the legal problems. On the other hand, Wikipedia fr doesn't accept comic like portraits because... they don't look enough like the person. So all kinds of illustration are rejected and at the moment, we hardly find a line about how to achieve correct portraits that would look like the person but would not infringe a copyrighted photo. That's why I'm just asking myself if the solution really exists. I search proof of this, but anyway, if we find a correct way to draw the portrait I should be able to draw them. Waltercolor (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It is definitely possible to have a drawing be derivative of a photograph. The copyrightable expression in a photograph is typically the framing, angle, timing, and elements like that under control of the photographer. If the photo is staged, such as a studio portrait, then the facial expression evoked may become part of it as well. For snapshot type photos, the actual subject of the photo is not part of the expression. If a drawing recreates the copyrightable aspects, i.e. copies that part of the expression, then it's derivative. If you can identify one particular photograph as the basis, then it may have copied the expression. On the other hand, if you use photos to just get an idea of what the subject looks like, but don't copy that expression, the drawing is fine. Photographers don't have a copyright on what a person looks like, but they might on the particular angle/expression that exists in their photo. There have been discussions on this before; one of them is at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/11#Drawings_of_persons,_based_on_unfree_photos., and another DR was linked above.
The photo there (and the DR mentioned above) were fairly blatantly drawings of a particular photograph, copying most of the expression. These are... more difficult. The few I looked at, seemed as though the angle was being copied from the photograph, but particular facial expressions and other details were not. I can understand disagreements in this area, as there aren't a ton of court cases on it (though there are a couple). I may lean  Keep on these. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are the facial features that allow the recognition of a person and these features allow face ident software to unlock phones, etc... The expression of a person is either a mood, or the general average way the person behaves in the life. As the features of the face must be present in the drawing or it would no be the portrait of that person, the expression is given in a drawing by the lines, which are not present at all in a photography. Tht's not something that is stolen to the photography as there is no real bridge from a continuous contrast and color plan like in a photography and a drawing obtained by lines that are selected by the artist to represent some contrasts and differentiate the form from the background (what the photo doesn't do. It's only we, as human, that deduce that from our perception which makes sopphisticated calculations to understand : this is a face, these parts are eyes, nose, mouth, hair... Of course there is no copyright on the way we interpret a planar sheet of paper or a screen as a face and not an abstract painting. Waltercolor (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: I'm surprised. Let's take just one example, say: File:Yuki Okoda.jpg and this image. Let's say the big hypothetical happens: someone finds an illustration on Commons and turns it into a poster/book that makes lots of money (and putting aside personality rights). The illustration is credited to Waltercolor only, because we're not acknowledging that it's a derivative work. Are you saying you don't think the original photographer would have a good case? The expression, light -- it's all identical other than the background. Perhaps the sort of thing you're talking about is like File:Carol V. Robinson.jpg, where it's appears copied from this image, but could be argued to be "just how she looks when she's looking at the camera and smiling"? In that case, it still appears borderline to me, but I could see an argument that, because it omits the clothes, necklace, background, etc., it could be kept. Trying to understand your point, though. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: fixing ping — Rhododendrites talk |  13:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, those two give me pause. I looked at some near the top; File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg seems far enough away from this that I think it's OK. Those two you mention look too close to me. But yes, replicating the small details of a particular photograph might be problematic. If it's just a snapshot, then any particular facial expression is not under the photographer's control and therefore not copyrightable expression, but in a studio portrait, it can be (dating back to a landmark 1882 U.S. ruling which debated the copyrightability of an Oscar Wilde studio photo, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony). There is some guidance on the U.S. side of things in the Copyright Office circular; they reference "drawing based on a photograph" as one of the main examples of a derivative work. As a U.S. project, I don't think we can ignore the U.S. side of all this. France definitely has a different threshold of originality, but I didn't think their definition of derivative work differed all that much. Maybe the threshold for photographs is higher, but in general studio portraits have usually been considered full-on "works" in Europe, whereas many of those countries used to (and a few still do) have different rules for "simple photos", i.e. more like snapshots. It's possible that France, like Switzerland, often doesn't consider snapshot photos as copyrightable at all. Studio portraits likely always have been, though. French law, article 122-4, says Any complete or partial performance or reproduction made without the consent of the author or of his successors in title or assigns shall be unlawful. The same shall apply to translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any technique or process whatsoever. If the photograph was copyrightable, sure seems like a drawing adaptation, if it's too close to that photograph, would be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that Barbara Martin photo is not very similar, and is by far the least concerning of the examples here. For what it's worth my benchmark for inclusion in this DR was whether a Google search for the subject's name turned up a photo which looked superficially similar to the drawing, and which when superimposed revealed any specific and unlikely correspondences. In the case of the Barbara Martin photo, if you line up the eyes of the photo over the drawing, the unshaded curve drawn in her hair aligns exactly with the earring in the photograph, and the lighter section under the line of her chin in the drawing matches with where the photograph's chin actually ends. But there is clearly significant additional and original work here. Belbury (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second one too, was a different facial expression and I thought was fine. Third one closer, but still didn't see enough to think it was copying enough expression. I may not have gone much further. Obviously, all of these have significant additional and original work added to them. The question is if more than a de minimis amount of expression was copied from another work. That does tend to show copying of the angle, but if that's the only aspect copied, then maybe a little bit is de minimis. What qualifies as copyrightable expression can also be very different between a snapshot and a studio portrait. For snapshots, the facial expression etc. can not be part of the photographer's work. That is the case with the other DR mentioned below -- that looks more like a snapshot. None of this is easy, for sure, as there are no bright lines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS There is one other one, which I nominated before Belbury nominated this group: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ellinah Wamukoya.jpg. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Belbury and @Rhododendrites !
    For information, I'm currently asking to all the authors of the photographies that inspired me for my portraits the permission for my derivative art.
    And, ok, just #lol for your links which are not the sites I was looking for and do not give the right credit for the photographies :-).
    Especially for Claude Grison's drawing : this is the list of a part of the photographies that inspired me for this one drawing : CNRS, Pour la Science, Radio France, Bio Inspire, Dis-leur, EPO.
    As you can see, whatever the photographer and the photo, she always looked the same at this time. Same hair, same smile, same shirt. Waltercolor (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep these are original drawings representing the person, which means it necessarily will always ressemble a photograph. Have we allready deleted a photograph because it ressembled another previous photograph ? Furthermore the example of Sam Bourcier above is not adequate, the drawing is relly very different from the photograph (the mouth is opened on the photo not on the drawing, there is no microphone in the drawing ect. ). If we follow too strictly this, we might end up having all drawn portraits and paintings deleted on our projects. Hyruspex (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@all : Here is the first answer for my series of my mail requests of permission to photographers for my graphic portraits. It concerns the portrait of Claude Grison :
"Bonjour,
Très joli dessin
Pas de problème pour l'utiliser
Bien cordialement.
Thibaut Vergoz"
In english : "Hello ! Very nice drawing. No problem for using it. Yours kindly. Thibaut Vergoz"
Waltercolor (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to do this. Can you also quote the question that you asked them, so that we can be sure what usage it is that they have no problem with? Belbury (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent all the email thread with the photographer to my VRTS correspondent Otto Ottensen who gave me once the status of author for my drawings (Happy to know it). Waltercolor (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, for the moment we have only received permission from the photographer Thibaut Vergauz for File:Claude_Grison.jpg per Ticket:2022102810010733. See my keep vote above. The other cases remain open. – We should now give Waltercolor some time to get the other approvals from the photographers and refrain from a mass deletion. It would be a pity if we lost these beautiful drawings. Mussklprozz (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore the example of Sam Bourcier above is not adequate, the drawing is relly very different from the photograph (the mouth is opened on the photo not on the drawing, there is no microphone in the drawing ect. If the drawing of Bourcier is scaled to the same size as the photograph and overlaid so that the glasses line up, the rest of the face falls into place, with her ear and teeth lining up perfectly, as well as the shadows of her glasses and nose. Yes, the mouth is a little more closed, the microphone omitted and the hair has been drawn freehand, but these are not major alterations. There is a lot of skill shown here in redrawing the photograph as an effective line drawing, but the overall shape of that drawing is fundamentally a tracing of one specific photograph. Belbury (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Discussion on the French Wikipedia village pump. Thibaut (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep je soutiens Waltercolor dans sa démarche artistique originale. Ces fichiers sont ses oeuvres. - C'est moi (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Translation: I support Waltercolor in her original artistic approach. These files are her work. --Thibaut (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons 100% regards these uploads as being Waltercolor's work. The question being asked by Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Drawings based on photographs is whether they should, under US copyright law, also be regarded as the work of the original photographers, where a drawing has been based on one or two specific photographs. Belbury (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This depends if the US Law can oblige one or several photographers to accept that their work gets really a part of the drawing or not. As far as I can see, in those kind of cases, photographers do not really want to claim being a part of the work of an artist. This creates a permanent link between their photography and a foreign and separate work they do not see as being really a "piece" of their own one (especially when they do not love the style of drawing).
    You know, it's heavy when you're a photographer and you get such "satellites" to your work you didn't expect or ask for.
    So they are several cases :
    - The photographer estimates his/her work has been "stollen" by the drawer -> they suit him/her and don't give the authorization.
    - The photographer is polite and answers to the request of Commons because he likes the artistic style of the drawing -> he/she answers that the drawing is "inspired from" (means it is not recognized as a derivative work and both works remain independant)
    - The photographer doesn't care and doesn't answer to the request of Commons because he simply does not get the point or does not want to loose time and energy for such difficult to define cases -> risk for having a legal issue for derivative work is low.
    So I believe none of these cases are really at high risk for Commons itself.
    Perhaps you could also explain more clearly which are exactly the legal risks for the Foundation and give me some examples.
    In my opinion, only the author can be suited for a counterfact and it's to the photographer to prove the counterfact, but I may be wrong.
    The platform must of course delete the files (do you delete them or only mask them on the server ?) but this should be enough, or is there really a high risk of getting a heavy sentence for the Foundation in such cases ? Do you have examples where the Foundation has been suited for derivative works on Commons ?
    Waltercolor (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not greatly familiar with the legal details, I'm just raising the COM:CSM policy for discussion of how it applies. Regarding your third case, though, COM:PRP does discourage hosting a questioned image on the grounds that the copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to. Belbury (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This applies to the license problem, not the authorship.
    To determine if a drawing is true derivative work is not simple as you can see, the judgements are different from one to the other person.
    So the absolute necessity to ask permission for "using" features that are not protected by the copyright is not justified. it's an extension of the license problem to the authorship problem which is different;
    If someone would claim a copyright on a person's portrait on some features that are common to all given portraits of a person, then this copyright could also forbid to other photographers to photography the same subject with similar angles, framing, environement... Of course, this could not be applied. Authorship is general and not media related. It counts for all media, photos, drawings, etc...
    Is this very special idea of drawings as sub-products of photographies specific to US Law or is it specific to Commons ? Have these "permissions" a legal value ? 14:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Waltercolor (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all photos of the identity photo type, and those whose origin is subject to caution (e.g. wrong assignment for Grison) : the lack of originality of this type of portrait, combined with the fact that any artistic choices due to the photographer (environment, framing unusual, specific lighting angle for example) are not reproduced sufficiently show that they are works inspired by one or more photos, and not derivative works. (Translation by google translate) --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Du même avis que Paul.schrepfer. Guil2027 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep These files are original works. Manacore (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Procedural close in view of the heterogeneity of situations raised in the discussion . I suggest renominations with a narrower scope. — Racconish 💬 17:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Waltercolor (talk · contribs)

[edit]

This was closed a few weeks ago "in view of the heterogeneity of situations raised in the discussion" with a suggestion for "renominations with a narrower scope", but I couldn't get a clear explanation from the closing admin of what that scope should be, or any COM:AN advice.

While the original discussion was open, File:Claude Grison.jpg received the necessary permission from photographer Thibaut Vergoz to allow Commons to host a free derivative work without crediting them. There was no update on the other permission requests.

So this is a renomination of the 12 remaining images, with the same homogenous concern: that they all appear to have been closely based on single specific photographs, and there is not (yet) evidence that the various photographers have granted permission for derivatives version of their work to be freely licenced without crediting them. Links to apparent/confirmed source images are in the previous nomination above.

Respondents are reminded that there does seem to be a significant difference between French and American law on this issue. Wikimedia Commons does not automatically consider sketches of photographs to be completely original works, per COM:BASEDONPHOTO. I think this has to be case by case: either a photo has a freely licenced source, has permission from the photographer, is considered to be only somewhat inspired by its source, or cannot be hosted on Commons.

Belbury (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Belbury ! Are you sure you're doing the job correctly ? I for example was redrawing completely the portrait File:Ellinah Wamukoya.jpg and you stil say it's derivative work ? From which photography ? Waltercolor (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks like I selected that one by mistake, there's a separate discussion still open for it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ellinah Wamukoya.jpg. I've removed it from the list here. --Belbury (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While somewhat homogenous, each drawing is going to be a separate decision, based on each photo, if we think it's derivative or not. I hate to clutter someone's page with individual DRs, but really they are all individual decisions. I stated in the previous DR that I did not think File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg was derivative. The methodology you used to come up with the list is reasonable, but decisions are made by comparing each photo to each drawing. So there will likely be messy mixed votes, again. Not sure how to structure it, unless maybe having a sub-heading for each photo. Might also be good to note when the photographs expire, so we have some undelete year targets as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it would be preferable to have all the discussion in one place, so that someone who felt that all the images should be kept or deleted wasn't expected to repeat their reasoning in 13 different DRs.
I think File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg is derivative in the sense that it has almost certainly been drawn freehand while tracing a specific photo for reference, where a few details like the earring and eye wrinkles line up 100% when superimposed, but the neck, eyes and mouth seem entirely original. Perhaps that's enough for Commons not to consider it derivative, though, if little or none of the lighting and posing of the original portrait survives. Belbury (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury Would you accept a "first round" when you give the arguments for a derivative work and let me draw a new version that would be acceptable for an original work ? Thanks. Waltercolor (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury : I uploaded new drawings for some files. So please have a look and tell me if it would be ok for you with such sort of changes. Thx. Waltercolor (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So long as these new drawings aren't closely based on one single pre-existing photograph, sure, that seems fine. The only one among them that I'd question is File:Béatrice Vialle.jpg, where only the subject's hair has been redrawn. The face itself is still a relatively close tracing of the linked video thumbnail at https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ao9I9c8tFhg/maxresdefault.jpg, with only small changes to the angles of the eyes and mouth Belbury (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening everyone. One solution could be to assign the free art license to the drawings by crediting the photographers and original works in the description of the files whose deletion is requested. Would that make them acceptable on Commons ? --Olga Rithme (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting the photographer is not enough -- if these qualify as derivative works, then we also need the photographer to allow the free art license (or CC-BY or any other free license) on the drawing. That did happen for one of the ones on the first PR. If we don't have that, then it becomes a question if these are derivative works (did they copy more than de minimis amount of expression from a particular photograph). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends who is qualifying the works as derivative. If Commons goes further than the photographer would do (as it was the case for one of my work), then, it's not correct. The de minimis amount of expression from a particular photograph may be overrated and the originality ot the drawing underestimated, so for me it has no legal value and is not acceptable.
And for me, personnaly, as an illustrator, I will also never accept a derivative licence. I am ok to make changes in the drawings until they are no more considered as derivative. If no agreement occurs, or if I estimate that the requested changes make the drawing too far from the facial identity of the person represented, I prefer that my work is deleted from Commons. No problem.
Waltercolor (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying to use the same criteria judges would use (i.e. what copyright law says). You can add as much originality to the drawing as you want, but if enough expression is copied it's still derivative -- it's more about removing any protectable aspects copied from the photo. And honestly, some of yours are close enough to that borderline that different judges may go different ways on the same one. Nothing about this is easy or obvious, unfortunately. If it is derivative, and the photographer decides he cares about a future use even if he doesn't think so now, you could have problems then. Giving a free license for the drawing is essentially permanently disclaiming that interest, which is what we would be after. We of course still need the license for the additional expression in the drawing, but that has been given.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 March 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

Same remarks than Carl Lindberg. And I can't help but globally repeat what I said in the previous thread :  Keep all drawings of the identity photo type, and those whose origin is subject to caution : the lack of originality of this type of portrait, combined with the fact that any artistic choices due to the photographer (environment, framing unusual, specific lighting angle for example) are not reproduced sufficiently show that they are works inspired by one or more photos, and not derivative works. (Translation by google translate) --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. In France, an exception in the intellectual property code specifies that an author cannot prohibit the reproduction of his work when this reproduction is used for informational purposes (article L122-5). Drawings nominated for removal provide information about the people in the articles that readers wouldn't have without them, such as face shape, hair color, wearing glasses, et caetera. In fact, these drawings are informative content, since they provide information. Is there such an exception in american law ? Could it be applied to this specific case and allow the conservation of the drawings ? (Message translated with Google Translate.)--Olga Rithme (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COM:BASEDONPHOTO does not mention such an exception in US law, although it may have overlooked it.
However, "when this reproduction is used for informational purposes" does not sound compatible with Commons. Commons:Licensing explicitly requires that images uploaded here "are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose".
French law may allow sketches of photographs to be used for informational purposes on the French Wikipedia, in the same way that US law allows fair use photographs to be used for information purposes on the English Wikipedia? But those US fair use photographs are never uploaded to Commons. Belbury (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Aside from the DW issue, these are out of scope -- we do not keep personal art from non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some files undeleted, where there is no copyright issue. See above and [1]. Yann (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Waltercolor&oldid=778506121"