Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Martino75

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 Martino75 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Looks like processed historical photos and advertisement. No evidence of permission for originals.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, first I d'like to know where in WP rules is mentioned that it's forbiden to give it's own "licence free" work as such as all original drawings or paintings that I made and then scan, digitalized and treat with photoshop, to match with the actual free licensing in WP. In fact, all this is my own work and totaly for free use and given to Commons. These portraits, "nature mortes" and scenes are precisely my work and NOT any duplication or direct reproduction but an artistic interpretation of some caracters, poeple or living scenes. There is no difference between types of pieces of arts when they are made according in a creation even "inspired" by real subjects, existing models or pictures. In Commons, it's easy to take in consideration several pictures that are exactly in the same conditions than my work, according to several pieces of art in history (eg : Da Vinci's Joconda revisited by many artists) :

J. Assange portrait
File:Jimmy Demers.jpg
Jimmy Demers


Jocelyn Britton
Barbara
Obama and Romney

Of course, I'm ready to add some official mention in Commons if it's helps to solve this. Best regards to all. Martino75 (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the only way of fixing this up is to delete everything, as I explained in your talk page. For example, this picture you mention above might be digitaly treated, sure, but who says that the uploader is not ALSO the photographer in the first place? While there is no proof that he is not, we know for sure that YOU ARE NOT the original author of these pictures. You just treated them with a bit of Photoshop. As for these other pictures in general: some of them might be copyright violations too, and if they are, they will be removed as well. The fact that there are other pictures that do not respect the law is not an excuse: there are hundreds of thousands of files here, and it takes time to clean up, but eventually any and all copyrighted images end up spotted and removed, one day or another. Sorru for your pictures and the time you spent creating them - dura lex, sed lex... Alchemica (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. It's wrong to think that that a work of art consisting in reinterpretation from an existing model, is a violation of copyright. When is a reinterpretation, that is to say, it is not a simple direct or partial copy but an original piece of artistic work that can not be legally considered a simple copy. As I stated here, I've listed a few examples in Commons and I gave a specific example for the type of work that will squarely in the direction of the reinterpretation of an existing model (Joconda and its multiple reinterpretations). My work is not just "adding" a color but from artistic considerations such as reviewing, editing, style (such as impressionist, coloring, pop art, etc ...), finding a new angle or format, framing the form of an existing model, to create an original work, clearly distinct from the starting model. If you watch full resolution of any document I made​​, you will of course recognize a "model of the real world", but artistically reviewed and modified by my own personal and artistic approach. In Commons, if a specific rule completely forbade the interpretation of an existing model, no design, no portrait, no painting of an existing model would then be accepted. Obviously, this is not the case, unless I'm mistaken. In the contrary, I gladly and readily admit that for the fac simile of the letter files I made, I agree for the deletion because the rule is clear. But for the rest of my original artwork, I beg you to give me objective and specific rules according to your point of view that this is not admissible. Have a nice day.Martino75 (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are rules like that, because we aim at respecting the law... You cannot upload a picture of a recent building because it is violates the architect's rights, for example. Derivative work is illegal too, so there is no need to find a Commons-specific rule against it, since it's clearly stated in the international copyright agreements. Basically, you cannot just take any existing document and turn it into an "artwork". Alright you flipped the picture, posterized it, changed the colors. No offense but that's nothing I couldn't do myself in more than a minute with Photoshop since it was my job for a few years. So now let's state it the other way : if this is enough to cancel copyrights, then why haven't we thought about it way earlier? Why do we struggle that much to obtain illustrations for some subjects? Well because unless the copyrights owners agree, there is no legal way of reproducing their work. That's quite simple. Alchemica (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, i beg your pardon but in your answer, you are not mentioning any specific rule or source. You only give your point of view. Could-you be more specific when you write "it's clearly stated in the international copyright agreements" (where, when, according to which organisation?). An original piece of art, event reinterpreting existing another like a "derivative work", still is an original piece of art like a detournement or tribute to, not an illegal copy, neither a counterfeit. So again, please give a precise sourced reference rule or restriction according to your point of view.

Here again are examples for reinterpreting existing pieces of art :

Here are some legal sources about these topics :

Best regards to all. Martino75 (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, some of these images are cool, and it would be a pity to lose them all but, as the Sheriff says, "This is the law !". The problem is that this, for example, is obviously made after a photo, which is probably copyrighted. I am less sure about this one, though : can the original photo be identified ?? Maybe we could give Martino75 the time to make new, more stylized pictures which would not look like digitally-altered photos, and replace the current ones. I know it would represent an awful lot of work for him, and maybe he won't feel like it, but it could be a solution to salvage his efforts. JJ Georges (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martino, Leonardo da Vinci has been dead long enough for his works to enter the public domain. The copyright for the works that you used as a basis for your uploads is almost certainly still in effect, which means that you cannot use them as a basis for works for which you own the full copyright (i.e. you have basically just created derivative works, =Œuvres dérivées en français). Best regards, Storkk (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK JJ, as you mentioned, what about for instance this original work I made ? (down) thumb||Dewaere's portrait wich is not base on any photo. Why would it be deleted ? And what about my own photo (down) too ?

Before deleting all these works, I understand that it has to be obviouly different. But if I re-work all these, then anyone could say that he feels that It's looking like the previous version, so it will be impossible to solve, according subjective artistic point of view. Rules has to be universal for anyone and for any subject in Creative Commons, not POV relevant. OK also Stork but when a contributor is drawing a porttrait of a poeple, he can be inspired by the model, then can re-interprete thru its own vision and artwork. That's what I did. Please consider again all examples I mentioned and liked here. Best regards. Martino75 (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks again. Martino75 (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the images should be examined one by one, at least on the disputed cases. For instance, Martino75 tells us that this is not based on a particular photo : in that case, it would be ok to keep it. JJ Georges (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JJG on this point. If some pics were not created by copying a photo, then it's ok to keep them but there's no way we can keep the others. As for the rules... there you go. I'm not stating my point of view, it's not my opinion, I'm just quoting some minor international convention that has been ruling copyrights worlwide for the last 130 years, no big deal. ;) And Martino, all the pictures you mention above ARE in the public domain because their copyright has expired, which is not the case with your own pictures. You can do whatever you want with La Joconde (like adding a pipe or a moustache) since Da Vinci's been dead for quite a long while, but you can't do the same thing with a work of art that is still protected. This is why we have no problem illustrating "old" subjects, like long-time dead people, but have a real bad time illustrating more recent biographies or general subjects. Alchemica (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! I understand all that but how to make a sort between the files to be deleted and others like my own photographs ? Example for this file [[6]]. According to this deletion requests, ALL my file will be suppressed ! Thanks again for your kind help and answers. Martino75 (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, now that it is clear that not all pictures are copies of existing work, I guess no-one will want to see all of them gone anymore. The best thing to do would be for you to name which pictures are derivative work and which ones are not, so that we can remove any original work from the deletion request. Is that ok? Alchemica (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind advice wich is fully logical (as could say Mr Spok) ! ;) I'll try to specify for each file, how I actually worked with or without watching an existing model or picture. But please be a little patient because I have to travel ten days from now and I'm not sure to an Internet connection there. Have a nice evening. Martino75 (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the drawings and paintings I made wich are originals and not derivative work :

Best regards. Martino75 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to reiterate that File:PatrickDEWAERE-35.jpg is exceptionally reminiscent of the second photo by Tony Frank here, flipped horizontally and with the hand removed, where the shirt is very white on the "drawing". Not only the position and expression, but the shadows/shading on the collar, the stray hairs on both sides of the forehead, etc. Storkk (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And File:ColuchePainting.jpg is just a straightening, dog-removal, and posterization of the photo here (direct link: [7]). So that's why he had such a weird expression - he was being licked by a dog. Changing my opinion above again back to  Delete all, as uploader is still protesting his ownership of files he clearly has taken from elsewhere. Storkk (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: rereading what I wrote, it sounds like I meant it punitively - I emphatically do not. I meant that, assuming Good Faith, uploader is showing a deep misunderstanding of copyright law, and that the precautionary principle applies. Therefore delete all. Storkk (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello evenyone. I just understood the "undirect" problem of copyright. Some of my drawings and paintings are inspired by movie scenes (e.g. for Dewaere). But the one I made in 2010 was a complete original one and are no copyvio relevant :

  • [[8]] File:Dewaere.png

As such as the fac simile of is "signature" in 1968

  • [[9]] File:DewaereSignature1968.jpg

Please note also that the photos I took myself are originals :

  • [[10]] File:DewaereMaisonParis.jpg
  • [[11]] File:CarlinaBiarritz1.jpg

I hope if I have to remake brand new drawings or paintings of the same subjects not directly inspired by any existing photo or movie scene, then, they will be be OK according to WP Commons rules. Thank's for your kind understanding. Have a nice day. Martino75 (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Deleted a few as copyvios and out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Martino75&oldid=122033876"