Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Su-37-Draft.svg

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

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Su-37-Draft.svg

[edit]

if you ask me, copy of this: Su-37_01.jpg, just vectorised and therefore little less details, i can not see a free licence for original source. --D.W. 11:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is not a derivative work. In case of doubt it's simply inspired. I don't deny that the suchoj image was to a certain extent the starting point for my work, but that's all. Image:Su-37-Draft.svg is absolutely different from Su-37_01.jpg. The fundamental difference between a lossless scalable vector image and a bitmap graphic is IMHO relevant to this relationship. Because totally zero of Su-37_01.jpg is part of my work, it can’t be an edited version of that bitmap graphic. And if it's not an edited version, it’s therefore no copyright violation - that's simply elementary. Threshold of originality is given. --FSHL 16:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is different from the other image, then Keep. --Digon3 talk 17:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to Digon3 - Redundant? I can't find another 3-view of the Su-37, so how could it be redundant? If you want to add a so-called »better vector« instead of my SVGs to Commons than feel free to do this. --FSHL 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Su-37_01.jpg was a commons file and Image:Su-37-Draft.svg was a low quality copy, sorry about that. --Digon3 talk 17:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then I couldnt understand why the quality is so bad: blurry lines. If you "zoom in" to the svg, it looks bad, you couldnt even seperate the lines. This could be made a lot better. when you say, that the original file was just the starting point, why you didn´t do it better, this way i couldnt see any improvement to a bitmap. So when delivering drawings, start with a bitmap and then do it better, using all advantages of vector graphic! LOL, the totally zero of your work isn´t Su-37_01.jpg? You just opened the file with inkscape and use a tool to vectorise, that´s it! So there is no real work of your own to produce a image. If you follow such a strange argument you would be able to use any pic from the internet, just vectorising and then its free for all (like you do so often, see your galerie)! Unbelievable.. --D.W. 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment to D.W. - So-called quality judgements are as well known always relative and therefore not really relevant for deletion. The reason why the lines are »blurry« (I definitively prefer sketchy) is finally very easy: it was merely my will. More about that context you can read here. I’ll surely not specify my exacting procedures to you but Photoshop of course also participates at this process. But if you can make it better than feel also free to do this and contribute them to Commons. --FSHL 19:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...maybe they wouldnt be better, but they wouldnt breach any copyright.--D.W. 20:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment to D.W. - Fact is that at the moment you’re just the only one that supposes that Image:Su-37-Draft.svg represents a copyright violation. That’s only possible because you simply compare apples and oranges - and that’s really unbelievable... --FSHL 21:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay..., we both can say, that a side, front or top view of a plane could look different, depending on the author (each of them will add a lot detail or just the prominant lines). So now i ask you how it could be possible that there are so many similarities in your blurry svg (lol, you say you want it that way, lächerlich) and a jpg-file. If we could ask the original author, he would say its a copy, whatever type of file it is, thats the point.--D.W. 21:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suching drawings are a kind of art, and therefore it´s not that easy..--D.W. 21:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment to D.W. - Probably that’s the reason why you can’t make them but fortunately that doesn’t have to apply to me. Isn’t? I’d find it very strange if 2 3-view schematics of the same aircraft wouldn’t be similar... BTW: The reason why you can’t »seperate (sic!) the lines« is just as trivially: I simply use for all my vector graphics principally vector surfaces instead of lines. --FSHL 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
um ausreden nicht verlegen..when i open the your svg and the original file, they even match perfectly on inkscape-workspace.. and i think a could also make svgs like you (inkscape-tool does a great job)

So thats the way you work (in my opinion): take a picture (no matter where its from, you dont care), in photoshop you remove some detail, which look strange after vectorising and then you take this clear derivate (it is still not a new work from you) and then you just need to do a little work in inkscape. If you ask me, this method could not produce any media for commons. The worst are your works, using photos to create weird svgs (nobody would normally do so, so maybe you should reconsider this approach of delivering material to commons, you are theonly one). In the end, sorry for my bad english, read you tomorrow ;) D.W. 00:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment to D.W. - You call my replies »excuses« (German: »Ausreden«), I just call them the truth and there’s simply no doubt about that. You call my SVGs »weird«, I just call them an artist's impression and concerning to this we could surely endlessly discuss - de gustibus non est disputandum... --FSHL 02:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bad vectorising (it does NOT require uber skills to do this kind of work) + copyright problems (yes it is SAME imag, just moved views randomly) --Ntrno 11:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to Ntrno - Well, if you think that Image:Su-37-Draft.svg »is SAME imag (sic!)« i.e. identical than Su-37_01.jpg than you can surely proof this circumstance by facts. Can you? If it’s identical than it’s absolutely clear that Image:Su-37-Draft.svg represents a copyright violation. But you can’t because they’re ad oculos not identically. If it’s not identical but rather similar than you’ve to proof that Image:Su-37-Draft.svg is a derivative work of Su-37_01.jpg in order to design a case of copyright violation. The reasons why it can’t be de facto and de jure a derivative work is simply the fundamental different nature of lossless scalable vector images and bitmap graphics. Comparing vector images and a bitmap graphics is IMHO simply comparing apples and oranges. They’re both fruits but that’s all... --FSHL 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to D.W. - The plain fact that you think that you must request for assistance doesn’t really speak for you. --FSHL 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact that I could found other users with bad experiences with you is a fact against you... and it is the same image, open both files with inkscape shows that they totally congruent in all lines, there are only some details deleted in your image (because vectorise the pic with them looks strange). THATS a proof, just a derivative (and so falling under the same licence like the original file--->not free for commons) image could do so. Its no matter if a file is svg or bitmap in this situation. this kind of reasoning would open the floodgates for even more copyright violations. No you are the only user, producing a lot of them. So stop this NOW!--D.W. 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to D.W. - Congruence is simply impossible and the reason for this is just as trivially: Image:Su-37-Draft.svg has a base size of 800 × 889 pixels, Su-37_01.jpg of 784 × 433 pixels. So they can be only congruent if you make them congruent by scaling and that’s by definition not a geometric congruence as rather similarity. I never negated that they aren’t similar because they’re the same aircraft. They must be similar otherwise they don’t illustrate the same airplane. Finally that’s just a proof that you didn’t understand the treated subject but nothing more. Furthermore I regard it as considerable supercilious that you really want to prescribe me what I might do. --FSHL 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to FSHL Can you produce any reasons why this work should be kept rather than nitpicking the many arguments against you? Just because the format is different does not mean that the work is not clearly derivative. The two works are clearly closely related. Even you cannot refute this. The fact that the other one (i.e. the jpg) came first rather implies that you used it to make the SVG. Just because the pixels do not line up does not mean that the work is not derivative. Would you say that if I increase the hex colour value by one unit for each pixel then the work is not derivate, just because no pixels are the same? no, it is still derivative. It is not about the pixels, it is about the work as a whole. If you would like to clear yourself, present proof that you have never, at any point in the making of this image, used a copyrighted work. And becfore you say it, you DO have to present proof to do so. If I may quote you from a similar argument on your talk page, I could upload then but I'll not. I've my justified reasons for limiting the publication that I'll not explain in public – sorry!. To me this strongly suggests that you are breaching copyright. Now you are accused, you may want to defend yourself with hard proof, if you have it. We are not trying to prescribe what you are doing for the fun of it, we are trying to make Commons a useful, fair, and legal repository of valuable media. You are bringing down the repuatation of the project with your works, which as far as I am concerned are copyvios, poor quality, and useless, making them also out of Commons Scope.Inductiveload 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to FSHL - Well no. You can choose to not provide evidence that you are producing legitimate works, but that will not help to show that they are legitimate. If you commit a crime and exercise your right to silence, are you saying that you are therefore above the law? Just the fact that you refuse, out of hand, to present any evidence that this is your work suggests that you are hiding something. If it is legitimate, why are you being so difficult? Inductiveload 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to Bangin - Show me just one damn single pixel that’s equal in both images. You can’t? Of course not because vector images simply don’t have any damn pixel. So how could there be a damn copyright problem? And if IYO really »seems like if there does exist some copyright problems« why can’t you specify it precisely? Only facts count. Furthermore is »bad vectorised (sic!)« definitively not a valid reason for deletion. If you want to argue with bad quality, then you’ve to give appropriate explanations why this particular image is IYO inferior compared to other ones. --FSHL 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment For example, if you vectorise en:Image:PepsiLogo.jpg and change couple pixels (vector lines) and modify color gamut it WILL be copyright violation on commons. Su-37 case is same. Maybe it is acceptable on some other site under fair use or other license, but not Commons surely --Ntrno 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear derivative work and is not apparently useful for any project that I can think of due to massive lack of detail and burryness (except maybe a tutorial how to attempt to evade copyright using Inkscape's auto-trace feature) Inductiveload 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Comment to Inductiveload - Image:Su-37-Draft.svg is AFAIK still in use on 13 pages in 11 projects and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not out of scope. »Burryness« is really not a valid reason for deletion and even you know that. »Massive lack of detail« is a comparison, however to what? There’s simply no other 3-view of the Su-37 at Commons. All further arguments were IMHO weakened already because in this special case there’s just no »damn pixel« anymore. There’s absolutely nothing! Nada! Nichts! Rien! Niente! Niets! Ничего! 何も! There’re only vectors. And you can’t BTW prove beyond doubt anyone of your other allegations thus I don’t need to deal with it. I principally don't count the chickens before they’re hatched. Fact is: I share my images but surely not my know-how. Furthermore I don’t have to justify why I don’t want to publish other images... --FSHL 06:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to FSHL - Blurryness is a reason for deletion. It makes it bad quality. If I upload an out-of-focus photograph, is that OK, just because I call it "art"? You cannot expect to turn a JPG/PNG/GIF, etc. into an SVG and get round derivative works rules, which exist for a reason. Just because the image is defined as a set of vectors, rather than pixels does not make it above the rules. You clearly can use Inkscape (especially since you claim that you didn't even use auto-tracing to make it), so whay don't you contribute good work? Inductiveload 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to Inductiveload - I've got fortunately the autonomy to make my work just like I want it. But If you want to contribute a so-called »good work« instead of Image:Su-37-Draft.svg to Commons than feel free to do this. I don’t have made the rules in Commons however I obey them strictly. If you can’t prove any rule/copyright violation against me, then may be because there’s simply no one. Did you ever think about that? And if »Burryness« really makes it bad quality, compared to what? To your ideal of quality? And if: Do I’ve to obey it? --FSHL 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The vectorised version even comes with the small inaccuracies of the original file, see the different spaces between the engines and fuselage or the vertival element in the illustration in the middle turning to the left slighly. One question remains: What about all the other files by this user? Where is the human brain (Image:Brain-Mapping.svg) traced from? Or Image:Jian-6.svg, Image:MiG-31B.svg? Compare Image:Yak-141-Draft.svg with http://www.yak.ru/FIRM/HISTMOD/yak-141.php --Polarlys 00:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment to Polarlys - I’ve used Su-37_01.jpg at the pre-production as study object in order to analyse its proportions, so the small inaccuracies of the original file could maybe as a result of this slipped in – that’s really probable and I can’t exclude that however I can’t confirm it... --FSHL 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your files are traced from non-vectorised images generally? --Polarlys 10:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to FSHL - Yeah, and I'm polar bear. Stop playing your "pre-production" theory game, we all understand that you've created this and 90% of your images using vectorize option in Inkscape. --Ntrno 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a three side drawing of the Su-37, it allways will look like the Su-37, whatever you do. And how much labor you ever spend to create such drawings, they will allways look like a Su-37.

This means, all such drawing will have a lack of originality, which makes them not copyrightable at all. I can redraw it by which measure ever, and nobody could ever claim a "copyright infringement" on it.

If any copyrights exist, then the one of the engineers who created the aircraft. But if this is the truth, you will have to accept that everything artificial will be copyrighted somehow and every image showing an artificial thing will be a derivate work. Images showing a car, airplane, mixer, handy, hoover, valves... -- Stahlkocher 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The image at www.suchoj.com is not the original one. You can find drawings in the original data sheets. They were forwarded to the press by Sukhoi. The homepage mentioned here is a privat one and must not be confused with www.sukhoi.org, the manufacturers homepage.

Kept. Not a derivative work. Data cannot be copyrighted and the measures of the aircraft (via a mechanical drawing) is not a copyright violation. -- Cat chi? 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Su-37-Draft.svg&oldid=764984406"