Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KurtGerstein.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.

Image:KurtGerstein.jpg

Derivative work of a photo. Sample can be seen here or here. Unless a proof is given that the original picture is licensed under a free license, or in public domain, this drawing should be removed from Commons. --Lilyu (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 Keep I Don't agree. This is an original drawing made after several pictures. Besides, theses pictures are probably in the public domain. Anyway, the drawing doesn't look like a copyvio. It's difficult to understand this deletion request! Jmex60 (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 Delete This is not after several pictures but the one linked (which is based on another picture.) The author of the original picture is unknown. It's fairly possible it that the author is not dead since 70 years.
According to http://www6.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/photo?lang=en (hotlinking won't work from this site, you'll have to search it yourself), the original photograph is located in Germany and was published in the "Encyclopedia of the Holocaust - Hebrew Edition 1990". Esby (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Stand by I have talk a little with the author of the drawing, he doesn't oppose to the deletion at first, but might have more to say. I think his advice might be needed, but he got to go for around a week. Can we wait a week until he come back and can participate to this discussion ? Lilyu (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)drawing author has give his advice
•  Keep You cannot copyright a person's basic likeness, and this drawing is a separate work standing on it's own. Let's say you want to draw a studio style portrait of this person in uniform. Again you cannot copyright the meme. Of course it will look like another studio style portrait of him in uniform. But since the meme cannot be copyrighted, an original work in the same meme stands on its own copyright. -Nard the Bard 15:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Delete Derivative of the photograph. Nard, if one wanted to avoid this, one would need to draw the man in a different pose. But this drawing shows him in exactly the same pose as in the photograph, and thus it's just a derivative work. Lupo 15:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am the author of the drawing. Of course, I admit I used the photo, and at least another one. I tried not to copy exactly: the differences you can see (yes, yes!) come, first, of my own will, and second, from my bad drawing. But it's not enough. So you can delete, and I'll make a better, and different one. This is not a problem. Morburre (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, if you could redraw it so it does not remind too much this picture, it would be for the best. The author of the photograph is probably unknown, even the probable source I provided might also not know it nor it might be able to authorize the derivative work. That's a bit paradoxal, but they host images while they don't know who did them and they can't authorize derivated works since they are not the author. Esby (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

May you guys explain something to me? Since when an original drawing can be considered as a copyvio? Where is the rule? I mean, OK, using a picture that is not in the public domain, and when it is not in the US, where the "fair use" does not exist, is forbidden. But what about a drawing? A drawing is not a picture, it is an original work. So who cares if it is close or not close to a picture? Who can decide that it is too close? Who can tell? Who or what is "stolen" in this case? I still don't even understand why this procedure of deletion has been launched! Jmex60 (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's what is called a derivative work. If you take a photo of a picture, or of a sculpture, it's a derivative work. If i make a drawing of a drawing, like a fake, even if it's a bad one, it's still a copy. This apply to photos too. Yes this drawing is the work of Morburre, and i do think it's a good one, i like it. But he dont own the copyright of the subject, which is not the German SS, but the photo. It's all drawn from it : same position, same look, same clothes, even the buttons are at the same places etc The copy is quite clear : a judge would state it's a derivative work. There is not enough differences, and too much clear similarities. What is stolen, is the design.

If you make a drawing copying one of my photos, even if you sux at drawing, i would sue you, and i would won in a court. Just admit that. Moburre and i work at the graphist workshop, we have all the time to deal with that kind of situations, the limit is always unclear. We try our best not to copy the copyrighted models we have to work from... and sometimes we don't succeed in it, the similarities are too evident. That's why Morburre is not furious, he knows. He said he will just try again and do a better one, with more originality. Lilyu (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The photograph that been used for this drawing is an orphan work (unknown author). It is protected by the law even if we don't know the author. Since Commons only allows redistribution of free content, it can't be on Commons as this ain't free. Now the drawing case: The drawing copies the look and feel, the essence of the photograph, so it has be considered as a derivated work. Derivated works of a non free photograph needs the permission of the author or of his heirs, even when the photograph is orphan. So without authorization the drawing as it for now can't be on Commons also.Esby (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Keep - It's a matter of opinion and not for certain that this is a derivative work in the legal sense. So it comes down to opinion - some think this is close enough to be copyvio - I for one think it's a new creation inspired by the photograph. And "design" is not subject to copyright - so that fact that the buttons are in the same location - well, that's how they made those uniforms! Good grief. Mattnad (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is not convincing : " well, that's how they made those uniforms! "

Why there is no right button on this drawing ? Do you mean that there is no button on the right shoulder of those uniforms ... or is it because there is none on the photo, and as the drawing is a copy of the photo... the button is absent too. All elements of the drawing are copied from the original photo : the drawing is a derivative work. Lilyu (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said. It's your opinion and others vs. mine and others. I respectfully disagree with you. I see enough differences to say it's not a copy. And if you do a little more research on uniforms, there are some designs that have the epaulet on one shoulder and not the other. Again, that's how they designed them. Mattnad (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to read this guideline : Commons:Derivative works, and learn more about copyright status of work of art transfered from a media to another. --Lilyu (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read it many times. Again - I see this work as creative interpretation of the subject in the photo - not copying or transfer of the photograph itself. The artist himself mentioned he used more than one photo for inspiration. Obviously since the subject is long dead, he could not do this art as a live portrait. While of course there are some broad similarities, they are due to the subject wearing a uniform. I think you're taking too hard a line on this. If the artist added a couple of buttons (even if they are historically inaccurate) and mirrored the image, would you relent? Mattnad (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So, than explain me why, if i make a movie from a book, change all names, change the dialogs, change some parts of the story/characters and the end of the movie and the title, move it from Napoleon wars to WW2... i would still be sued by the author of the book ? I bet there would be a lot more differences between them than between this drawing and the photo

What you seems to confuse is that YES, this drawing is a work of art that is significantly original to create a new copyright that Morburre hold, BUT the copyrights of the author of the photo STILL APPLY, according to german laws, and his agreement or the agreement of those who have inherited from him is required for this work to be published. ----Lilyu (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The example you gave about making a movie is done all the time and people are not sued. What you've described is a new creative work and not a derivative work by the legal definition. In essence, it's no longer a "movie from the book" as you put it. If we were to rely on such a broad definition, most art would be subject to lawsuit. For instance, if I saw a photograph that inspired me to write a song about the topic, you might claim the song is a copyright violation! I'm not convinced we need such an overarching interpretation of copyright in this instance. I see this as inspired by...... and not a copy.

But as I've mentioned before - we can differ on opinion here.Mattnad (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What you describe to me is the new copyright that is created by the author of a derivative work, the originality that makes that he does own part of the copyrights that do apply to the derivative work. I'm sorry, but all of your explanation is just the opposite of Commons' guideline Commons:Derivative works. Lilyu (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You have argued, much to my amazement, that even if there is no resemblance, but there is a reference, then it's a derivative work and a copyvio. Well, I hate to break it to you, but ALL of Wikipedia falls under that umbrella. The very articles we write are inspired by, and refer to other works that are under copyright. But somehow wikipedia exists and is not subject to lawsuit in German (about which you've expressed the most concern). So I think you may be wrong here. I don't really care if this drawing is cut out - the artist doesn't mind redoing it - but I am worried there are editors who misunderstand copyright and throw their weight around. Mattnad (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Although Morburre is asking us to stop arguing (pardon Morburre!), i just want to react to what you wrote above, dear Mattnad : I totally agree with you, and i'm glad you put it down. Thanks Jmex60 (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can only second you, but maybe not exactly as you were meaning it, Mr tragedy ;) Lilyu (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Stand by So who is the current copyright holder of such picture if the original author is unkonwn? Maybe it should be interesting to send an e-mail to [1] to ask them if they know the copyright holder or if they agree that we do a free draw looking like their picture. Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 09:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep This drawing is inspired by different pictures, the picture(s) of which the drawing is allegedly derived was published long before 1990, and if Gerstein had a uniform with buttons missing I don't see the point to add fictious buttons. Beware that if you erase the buttons, it will become a copyvio of the private picture that Gerstein's widow had in her home: she had to remove all SS-insigna on her husband's portraits, to avoid bad comments by well-thinking neighbours. If Morburre wants to redraw the subject, why not, but really I see overreacting in this request. PS for Guérin Nicolas: Why ask the web site on Anne Frank and not the one on Zyklon-b or, even better, the Kurt Gerstein Haus ? --Moumine (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop! I have to fight against my defenders! Yes, I used this photo, I tried not to copy it exactly, using another photo, but I copied the uniform, the buttons, and the result looks like a copy of the photo. I know, I believe, I hope I didn't really steal anybody, the author of the photo is unknown: I would't have done the drawing if he had be known. Now, I make sometimes personal drawings, it's my job actually, and I don't like to see my works copied, or reproduced. I never intented a trial, but it could happen some day, because there are laws and we, everybody, must respect them. I propose to keep this picture one week more, then I make a good fair legal portrait of Mr Gerstein, I change it everywhere, and the bad illegal will disappear. Chers amis bouffeurs de grenouilles, c'est déjà bien que je me sois tapé tout ce baratin dans la langue de Shakespeare, ou approchant, alors ça serait bien d'en rester là. Je vous embrasse. Morburre (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well copied --Moumine (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Last news. About the uniform and collar, according to this [2], the picture is not Gerstein ! Funny, isn't it ? Morburre (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK you can delete NOW. Tiiiiiiiimber! Morburre (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep Obviously, an original work. Silly talk above. -- Perky (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The new version is here. Image:KGerstein.jpg - All usages replaced on wikis - Thanks to Morburre for the new drawing.

---

Deleted / Esby (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)