Commons:Deletion requests/File:KGerstein.jpg

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.

File:KGerstein.jpg

[edit]

No source for this derivative work provided. The work this image is based on is most likely not in the PD or under a free license. Polarlys (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The work this image is based on: ok, where is it ? It's a matter of habeas corpus. Or necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. Good luck. Morburre (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Il you miss the Season One, it's here : [[1]] Morburre (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possibilities:

  • This image is based on a public domain photo. Then this public domain photo should be named. If this is not the case, the image should be deleted.
  • This is a fantasy image of someone you think to be the displayed person. Then it is not withing Commons:Scope. --Polarlys (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the good is the third : this image is freely inspired by these pictures (yes, all —almost all) [2] and is not a derivative work of any one of them. Exactly what happens when you write an article with informations taken here or there, without any copyright violation. Morburre (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People regularly create derivative works from copyrighted works just to avoid getting into the trouble to prove where a photo comes from. We don’t know if this image isn’t based on some photo we don’t know. This would make it a clear copyright violation. Otherwise is a painting (created by a non notable painter who never has seen the displayed subject) and created to show “how the person looked like” a little strange for a serious encyclopaedic approach, mhh? --Polarlys (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting remark, especially coming from an administrator, but since when should a file have an encyclopaedyc approach? According to Commons:Welcome, Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone. You are aware, I guess, of the fact that "Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites"(see this page)? Asavaa (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Polarlys, if you claim that the picture is based on a certain copyrighted work, please identify the original work. Otherwise grounding for your deletion request is really faint. I fully support the argumentation of Morburre. --Pabouk (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaders have to provide any work their work is based upon. Shall we discriminated these uploaders who provide a source for their derivative works (with the risk that their work is deleted because of licensing issues of the unfree work) while uploaders who simply don’t add a source benefit from our incapability to find a file on the web? We have no fast access to all that stuff hidden in the deep web and books. It’s always the uploaders duty to prove that his content is free. --Polarlys (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I say I used, as documentary sources, the two or three existing pictures of K. Gerstein, that everybody can find on the web. Everybody can see I didn't copy any of these pictures. If you believe I copied another "hidden" picture, you understand that I can't prove you're wrong. So it's your job to bring the proof. Morburre (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so it’s the image of someone who reminds people of Gerstein but acutally doesn’t show Gerstein, since it’s the impression of a non-notable artist of someone who lived decades before and has never been the artist’s model? --Polarlys (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Anaxagoras.png is a generic clip art image that has been used for centuries, has an unknown author, and isn't even from the same millennium as Anaxagoras. Should we eliminate it as out of scope too? -Nard the Bard 18:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the same. There is most likely no true portrait of this person and this image should not be handled as a portrait but an unknown artist’s impression which found it’s way into publications of its time. It represents how artists believed Greek philosophers looked like, mixing knowledge and ideals of their time. This can’t be compared to some Nazi comic which was created after its author got some trouble with Commons:Derivative works. This project does not need half-baked more or less “free” content at the price of its encyclopedic integrity. --Polarlys (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waow! Nazi comic! Morburre (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Au nom de l'"intégrité" morale, veuillez surveiller vos propos. Morburre est un contributeur respectablement connu sur WP et considéré comme une homme intègre. Je considère ses arguments et ceux de Nard the Bard comme totalement valables. = (please, excuse my faults in English) On behalf of moral "integrity", please watch your words. Morburre is a respectably known contributor on WP French and considered as a man of integrity. I consider his arguments and those of Nard the Bard as totally valid. --Égoïté (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Original portrait of a famous person. Okki (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Il me parait juste de laisser ce dessin dans les fichiers de Commons Wikipedia, pour les raisons suivantes :

I think it's just to keep this drawing in the files of Commons Wikipedia for the following reasons:

  • Le travail des artistes, dans toutes les disciplines (architecture, dessin, peinture, sculpture, cinéma....), passent d'abord par l'apprentissage du regard, puis par un travail qui cherche son inspiration dans la longue observation des oeuvres, avant qu'il ne prenne un certain essor et qu'il passe le relais à la génération suivante.
    :Toutes les études des historiens de l'art démontrent qu'il est possible de remonter de la période contemporaine à la période ancienne, par variations successives et souvent subtiles - le cubisme n'est pas né ab abrupta. Au dix-huitième siècle, le voyage en Europe était de mise pour tous les artistes et les anglais ont maintenu cette tradition (le Grand Tour) plus longtemps que les autres peuples. Qu'allaient-ils donc chercher ? des sources d'inspirations, comme Turner lors de ses si nombreux voyages en Europe.
    :De Dali et l'angélus de Millet, des premières oeuvres de Picasso et son rapport avec Cézanne et avec les arts premiers (Picasso disposait d'ailleurs de certaines de ces oeuvres dans son atelier, pour mieux les "copier"), de l'influence de Palladio sur Androuet du Cerceau ou Inigo Jones à minima, les exemples se trouvent à foison.
    :C'est parce que les artistes n'ont cesser de s'inspirer des oeuvres de leurs prédécesseurs et de leurs contemporains que l'Art existe et s'inscrit dans une histoire vivante. Ce dessin en fait partie.
  • The work of artists in all disciplines (architecture, drawing, painting, sculpture, film ....), pass at first by the learning (apprenticeship) of glance, then by the work which looks for its inspiration in the long observation of the works, before it takes certain development and before it crosses the relay to the next generation. All the studies of the art historians demonstrate that it's possible to go back up from contemporary period to the ancient period, by successive and often subtle variations : the cubism was not born ab abrupta. In the eighteenth century, the journey in Europe was acceptable for all the artists and English maintained this tradition (le Grand Tour) longer that the other peoples. What did they fetch? Sources of inspiration, as Turner during his so numerous trips in Europe. From Dali and the angelus of Millet, from early works of Picasso and its relationship with Cézanne and with primitive arts (Picasso also had some of these works in his studio,"to copy" them better), from the influence of Palladio on Androuet du Cerceau or Inigo Jones a minima,examples are in abundance.It's because the artists have never stop being inspired by works of their predecessors and by their contemporaries,that Art exists and is a living history. This drawing is one.
  • Que ce dessin fasse référence à une période pour le moins troublée de l'histoire du monde ne lui enlève pas ses qualités nécessaires pour être une oeuvre d'art. L'enlever ne gommera pas l'histoire. Celle que nous vivons n'est guère plus noble. Dans nos quotidiens, tous les dessins, caricaturaux ou non, représentants des bourreaux des atrocités de la fin du XXème siècle (le XXI n'est malheureusement pas exempt de guerres) sont aussi des oeuvres d'art. Les bandes dessinées -Nazi comics ou pas - sont des oeuvres d'art; elles ne sont pas méprisables sous prétexte qu'elles renvoient à des pratiques barbares que nous réprouvons. Pratiques qui ne sont pas éradiquées et contre lesquelles nous n'avons pas d'autres actions que des protestations polies.
  • Whether this pattern refers to an, at least disturbed, period of the history of the world does not deprive him its necessary qualities to be a work of art. To remove it will not erase the history. The one that we live is hardly nobler. In our newspapers, all the drawings, caricatural or not, representatives of the executioners of the atrocities of the end of the XXth century (XXI is not regrettably exempt from wars) are also works of art. Comics - Nazi comics or not - are works of art; They are not despicable under pretext which they refer to the barbaric practices that we condemn. Practices which are not eradicated and against which we have no other actions that polished protests.
  • Ce dessin original et matérialisé est l'expression de la personnalité d'un auteur. Il est donc en soi une oeuvre d'art. L'objet n'est pas de débattre de ses qualités.
  • This original and realized drawing is the expression of the personality of an author. It's thus in itself a work of art. The object is not to discuss its qualities.
  • Il s'agit d'une oeuvre de l'esprit, créée dans un but artistiqu,e par un auteur identifiable en la personne de Morbure. Que Morbure soit un artiste reconnu ou inconnu, ceci ne lui retire rien à sa qualité d'auteur. Faut-il rappeler le nombre d'artistes qui sont «redécouverts» après quelques décennies de sommeil (Bach par exemple) ? Le débat ne porte pas sur la notoriété de Morbure, mais sur la pertinence du maintien de son oeuvre dans les fichiers de Commons.
  • It is a work of the mind, created in an artistic purpose, by a recognizable author in the person of Morbure. That Morbure is a recognized or unknown artist doesn't change anything, This removes him nothing from his author quality. I'snt necessary to recall the many artists who are "rediscovered" after decades of sleep (for example, Bach) ? The debate does't concern the fame of Morbure, but on the relevance of the preservation of its work in the files of Commons.
  • Ce dessin est suffisamment ressemblant pour permettre de reconnaitre K. Gerstein. Mais, il n'est pas l'exacte reproduction d'une quelconque photo, il est bien l'expression de la personnalité de l'auteur, qui a réinterprété, à sa manière, la représentation traditionnelle de l'époque. Est-cela qui gêne ? Dans certains films, la violence n'est que suggérée, jamais montrée, l'impression de violence n'en est que plus forte.
  • This drawing is enough similar to permit identification of K. Gerstein. But, it's not exact reproduction of some photo, he is expressing the personality of the author, Who reinterpreted, in his way, the traditional representation of time. is it that which hampers ? In certain films, the violence is only suggested, never shown, the impression of violence is there only stronger.
  • son auteur Morbure a cédé les droits sur son oeuvre en suivant les procédures de Commons Wikipedia.
  • His author Morbure gave up the rights on his work by following the procedures of Commons Wikipedia.

Ce dessin est tout à fait à sa place dans les fichiers de Commons, comme témoin d'une vision du XXème par un artiste du XXIème.

  • This drawing is completely on its place in the files of Commons, as witness of a vision of the XXth by an artist of the XXIth.

--Legraindeblé (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Traduction --Legraindeblé (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everybody. I don't want to argue more. I make little drawings because, in real life, it happens to be my job. I can say I'm an artist because I pay taxes for this and I earn some money with this. Except when I work for Wikipedia ans Commons. No matter if I have, or not, any kind of notoriety, I just want to be an anonymous contributor. And I'm still free to stop free work. And I make comics, but never Nazi comics, and if the question is asked, no, I don't especially like the Nazis (I've good reasons for that). Morburre (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a comic showing a nazi not suitable for encyclopedic purposes, not a comic for nazis. I never wanted to express this, please don’t turn it this way. --Polarlys (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep like Moburre wants it --tpa2067 (Allô...) 11:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Keep Autant demander aux rédacteurs de Wikipédia de renoncer à une description textuelle d'un personnage s'appuyant sur une photo. Un rédacteur écrit, un dessinateur dessine. Morburre fait les deux avec le même talent et le même respect de la déontologie de sa profession et des règles wikipédiennes. --Alter Mandarine (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Moburre, for mobilising people from fr.wikipedia.org to vote here. Unfortunately, this is no voting. --Polarlys (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci de ne pas prêter à Morburre un état d'esprit aussi pitoyable que répandu mais dont il est, lui, aux antipodes, et de bien vouloir nous accorder notre libre-arbitre : Morburre n'a pas besoin de nous pour exprimer son point de vue et nous sommes libres d'exprimer le nôtre, qu'il aille ou non dans son sens ! Il est fort désagréable d'être suspecté de panurgisme ! Le procès d'intention est fort mal venu ! Les discussions pourraient être intéressantes et enrichissantes sur commons comme sur wikipédia... dommage --Alter Mandarine (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn, have fun to spurn Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Project scope and all our subprojects guidelines on illustrating historical articles. I keep up to argue against this practice to by-pass copyrights but in this special case I am tired of users recruiting others to vote here and trying to twist my words. --Polarlys (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KGerstein.jpg

[edit]

Clearly a derivative of en:File:Kurt Gerstein.jpg. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KurtGerstein.jpg for how this image was created to try to circumvent copyright rules on Commons. But according to Commons:Image casebook#Drawings based on photographs: "Drawings based on several photos are derivative works of all of them, and permission from the authors of all copyrighted photos would be needed."
If we allow exceptions, let us have the original SS photo from 1941. Or maybe this unsourced photo in a suit is old enough. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You decided. Alone, it seems. But you know. See above : Le débat de suppression est clos (need a translation ?). So, don't stop, you've still a lot of work. First, you can delete all my drawings on Commons, I suppose they're all derivative from something. And now you know I definitely stop making drawings for Commons, and for free, and go on doing my job in real life. As long as I don't meet you. Morburre (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Closure of the previous DR was a bit fast - less than the normal seven days minimum. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Don't be silly. Almoste everything is a derivative work of something else, unless you will be starting out with re-inventing the wheel. Copying from one source is plagiarism, copying from many sources is scientific work. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Note that previous DR had fourteen votes, far more than most discussions. Twelve were keep.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:01, 18 June 2010 (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.

File:KGerstein.jpg

[edit]
  •  Delete – We have no proof that this image is copyright free. The alleged copyright holder apparently has no name, but only the Wikipedia "user" name claiming the right to it. The same drawning of Gerstein is featured in a copyrighted publication available at http://www.domenicovecchioni.it//upload/images_pagine/big/29_1.jpg
Offline source: "Richard Sorge: la più grande spia del XX secolo", Alla libreria FELTRINELLI (Via Milano, angolo via Trento, 65100 PESCARA), la presentazione del primo volume della collana "INGRANDIMENTI": Richard Sorge. La più grande spia del XX secolo", di Domenico Vecchioni. Introduce il prof. Ugo Peorlino.
Copyright notice: Richard Sorge: la più grande spia del XX secolo. ISBN 9788879806930; OCLC 795156624 — Poeticbent talk 21:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read, just for the fun, the discussion above ? See the date of uploading of this drawing, 2008, made by myself, with a Pentel brush pen and Indian ink, on watercolor paper, and not simply lifted from this website, nor copied on it, or copied on the picture of a magazine. OK, I know I’m a very talented artist : in 2008, I could copy BBC History Italia of August 2013, presenting a book of 2012 (see copyright notice). Didn’t you think that this magazine could have picked the picture in Commons, and after, been picked by the gentleman of the website, forgetting the credits ? Well, now you do as you want, delete or not, I won’t interfere any more, as I don’t upload any more drawing in Commons. Just laugh. Yours, --Morburre (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the author sold this artwork to BBC History Italia on the side is one thing, but the book author is Domenico Vecchioni, not BBC History Italia. So, was is sold to Domenico Vecchioni or his publisher Greco&Greco? What's the name of the artist. Maybe we can trace back his copyright there? The image cannot be free at Commons and copyrighted elswhere at the same time. Sorry, Poeticbent talk 00:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Speedy keep please, per the previous two DRs with broad concensus, and the really weak reason for this DR (a book published in 2012 and this file uploaded to Commons in 2008). As you noted, Morburre IS (or highly likely to be) the author (and the copyright holder) of the drawing, and, as based of the person pictures, there is not a derivate work. So assuming this file is a copyvio of any sources published after 2008 is ridiculous. If anyone take and claims the copyright of a file previously released, this is the problem of that person, not the actual copyright holder (Morburre). --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just facts. Drawing uploaded in Commons in 2008. In 2012, Domenico Vecchioni publishes a book about Richard Sorge, Greco & Greco publishers. Is this book illustrated ? Is this drawing inside ? I don’t know. And you ? In August 2013, the magazine BBC History Italia, Sprea International publishers, shows pictures of Kurt Gerstein : one photography (author unknown, but not in public domain according to datation), and the drawing (bought to me in 2008, just before I upload it in Commons ? or after, because of course a publisher is dumb enough to pay for something he can get for free ?). Have you seen the credits in this magazine (they are sometimes in a dedicated place and don’t appear near the illustration itself). And il signor Domenico Vecchioni puts a picture of the pages of the magazine (a picture, with a sligh--Amitie 10g (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)t persective, lights and shadows) on his website. Did you learn something about edition before coming here to play with DRs ? I’m a little tired. Aren’t you ? --Morburre (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Please forgive my bad English — but my Polish is worst. And my drawing not terrific.[reply]
I suppose to you wrote the above to the nominator. Anyway, a little research from the nominator will avoid this and future discussions about this little problem. Also, if there is actually a copyvio from your drawing, the CC-GFDL license is sufficient to take legal actions. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wrote to the nominator. Anyway, I don’t care about legal actions. When I gave my drawings to Commons, it was a gift to everybody, not a way of promoting myself (actually, Morburre isn’t my real name. My name isn’t so hard to find, but I don’t want to put it anywhere in Commons and Wikipedia). Ah, one thing more : if this file is deleted from Commons (as was my first version of Kurt Gerstein in Nazi uniform), I recover the whole copyright, and I can sell it as I want, right ? And be rich at last ! --Morburre (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are the copyright holder of the drawing in any way, but you released them under a free license (CC-BY-SA/GDFL), that is irrevocable in most of cases; deleting from Commons will not remove the permissions already given. As you as the copyright holder of the drawing, you can do anything with them, but not restrict the usage of the file, unfortunatelly. But, you can multi-license the file for specific uses and specific persons/entities. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged copyright holder apparently is a pseudonym of a Wikipedia "user" claiming the right to withdraw his submission. Whoa!.. No OCLC ticket... only wild claims of some self-declared artistic talents. Anyway, the likeness of the subject is quite debatable, if we compare it with the actual photograph on which the drawing was based (see here). The drawing style is that of a comic book illustration. This is not a realistic portrait, but an impression of Gerstein's original photograph, anatomically exaggerated. The only thing we can say for sure is that everybody claims to be an artist these days. Poeticbent talk 17:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ah ! Les masques tombent. So, it’s no more a matter of copyright, but an appreciation of some self-declared artistic talent (where? when? citation needed!) Well, there is the challenge: as you are an artist, with a name, draw or paint yourself a portrait of Kurt Gerstein, in your own style, or any else style, to illustrate the article. You may see, or not, the three or four existing pictures of the man. Submit it to Commons with the license you prefer. And let the community give its opinion. Isn’t it fair? Good luck in your enterprises! --Morburre (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC) (if you want to know, believe it or not, diplomed of an art school, graphist and illustrator since 1970 without interruption, no other job, and never pretending to be an artist. And no plot managed to delete my article in Wikipedia.)[reply]
Stop talking about yourself User:Morburre and "your" art. As I said, we have NO PROOF that this image is copyright free. Poeticbent talk 00:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I’m waiting about your art now. And your proof of I don’t know what. --Morburre (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morburre, because Poeticbent don't want to understand your arguments (and the two previous DRs with broad concensus) for claiming the copyright of your drawing, I strongly recommend to you to contact to OTRS, in order to probe your authorship of the drawing. And Poeticbent, stop assuming bad faith! Administrators and/or OTRS should decide the future of the file. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: As Morburre contacted to OTRS (that he indicated in my talk page), the file is currently OTRS pending. So, the uploader must place {{subst:OP}} in the file description. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as above. Still no external source provided to doubt own work an no derivative. Outcome of OTRS awaiting. --JuTa 21:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:KGerstein.jpg&oldid=136586865"