Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Stephencdickson

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 Stephencdickson (talk · contribs)

[edit]

A great shame to flag these for potential deletion as clearly a lot of work has been put into them over the years, and they'd be very useful to the project if permissible, but per recent pump threads here and here, consensus seems to be that these are derivative works, being modified versions of original artworks and photographs, and cannot be freely licenced and reused solely as User:Stephencdickson's "own work".

Example: File:Pastel portrait of Sir William Gray by Stephen C Dickson (after Alan Sutherland).jpg is derived from this 1977 portrait. I haven't tracked down sources for all images, but checking many of the files below at random, a Google image search for the subject's name turns up an original portrait which was its derivation.

The user hasn't explained their working process in detail, but it appears to involve printing a digital image onto paper, and applying pastel and pencil over the top to cover most of the original detail, while retaining the same artistic depiction, before scanning it back in. It sounds as if the creator may have been acting on bad advice from others that an editing process such as this would remove any copyright and allow the final result to be freely CC-licenced.

(Thanks to User:Clindberg for checking and flagging the potential copyright status of most images below, I've also flagged some of the others.)

Likely public domain in US and country of origin (usually UK)
Under copyright in UK
Under copyright in US via URAA


Still not enough information

Lord Belbury (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
 Delete If the source is under a copyright, these are copyright violations. If the source is in the public domain, there isn't copyright issue, but there isn't any point of not using the picture. In these cases, these works are out of scope, as personal art. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, except in PD cases: There is a problem with bad underlying copyrights, but we may not have any other picture for some of the works with underlying PD copyrights, and for certain uses these drawings may be superior to the original; old newspaper photos can be pretty bad.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does not make sense in deletion is that these are largely 19th c people and the original images are non-copyright or copyright expired. This to me should be self-evident. My intention is to fill gaps on Wikimedia/pedia and to improve the quality of available images. My image of John Primrose Ure is based on a 5cm high blurry photo in the Glasgow Herald and whilst it has reappeared in more modern sources (notably without copyright issues raised) my own work whilst necessarily "derivative" (otherwise being pointless) is my own grey pastel work and my own intellectual property. If you were to do an electronic analysis you will find it different in almost all respects from the original but (as I am a reasonable artist) reasonably recognisable. The nature of the creation and lack of copyright on the originals makes this whole issue quite bizarre. I am at least glad that some see that this is a LOT of effort and it would be heart-breaking to remove it. Short of creating a video to show how I create each (which would be a long video) I do not how to prove these are my own works and "derivation" is deliberately minimised whilst trying to keep a meaningful likeness. Ironically the John Primrose Ure image which began the whole debate I consider one of my artistic best... which is perhaps a lesson in itself... If the pastel images were more remote from source (and less identifiable) they would then (by the theories above from complainants) be more acceptable. A ridiculous catch 22--Stephencdickson (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody with a better understanding of copyright than me give some guidance for which source images are and aren't public domain here? It looks like the majority of these pictures are of people who died in the 20th century, and at least one (the 1977 William Gray portrait mentioned above) is derived from the work of an artist who is still alive today. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the UK copyright status, you can follow this chart. For the U.S. status, COM:HIRTLE can help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep ones based on PD sources,  Delete ones where the source is still under copyright. I think these are in scope, if the licensing is OK, even if the PD original would be better on the Wikipedia articles. Determining PD status can be difficult for works from the late 1800s and on. The John Primrose Ure image... is almost certainly PD-1923 for the U.S. side of things, and it may be PD-UK-unknown, but as it is likely an early 1900s photo we may need to know the source and if a photographer was mentioned in the original publications. The Malcolm X photo is possible due to U.S. formalities but we would need to know its publication history. File:Dr Henry Marshall by Stephen C Dickson, after Daniel Macnee.jpg should be fine -- that artist died in 1882. In all cases, it's best to note the underlying work so that author is credited as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep or  Delete according to the status of the original photo, per Carl and others above. I think those that are OK regarding copyright are likely in scope: where the original photo is poorly reproduced (low resolution, nth-generation rescreen, or the like), a redrawing might well be superior as an illustration of the subject, per Prosfilaes. And where the drawings can be paired with the originals they would serve as useful demonstrations of the artistic technique itself.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't be objective here, as I requested the uploader to do some of these portraits (after coming across some of his earlier work). See the discussion here. I was made aware (through a ping) of the two recent discussions here and here. I am not convinced that the approach taken by Stephencdickson does actually breach the underlying copyright (if you look closely at the examples, the changes are actually quite substantive). The only way to 100% test this would be if one of the holders of the copyright to the original photographs did take some sort of action. I think that would be unlikely to occur (except in the case of the painting where the artist is still alive). I can understand, though, that Commons takes a very conservative approach to avoid the risk of any infringements. It is likely that a lot of these images will be deleted, but can I please make a plea for those participating in this discussion to try and work with and encourage Stephencdickson to try again and see if it is possible to come up with a style that is acceptable? It is incredibly rare to find someone willing to do artistic renderings of people, and this should be encouraged and guided, rather than discouraged (I hope people participating here can see that this deletion discussion is likely to have a discouraging effect).
    See also the comments I made here and here. Also note the guidance at: Wikipedia:Donated artwork/Artists' welcome page (does this guidance apply at Commons or not)? "You are encouraged to create a portrait in the medium of your choice and then upload it to Wikimedia Commons under a compatible license. [...] The image should be realistic and may be based on multiple photos found using search engine results. [...] It is extremely important that the piece is original and can not be considered a derivative of any existing work. Therefore, it must not be copied from any other image(s), as that would likely constitute a copyright violation." If there is an example where more than one photograph or painting is available, maybe try again with that example and see if the resulting portrait by Stephencdickson is acceptable here at Commons? Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: : Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Drawings has a couple examples which were kept, plus some further discussion and links. This court case also has a very good discussion about what constitutes expression in photographs, and derivative works of them. That case was between two photographs, where the second was ruled to be a derivative work of the first (shown at the end of the PDF). Many of the principles will still hold when it comes to drawings of photos. The Artists' welcome page mentions the need to avoid derivative works, but does not get into the detail needed. There is enough gray area that reasonable people can differ, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "weird" is too judgmental. I don't mean to criticize the art, I just find it disconcerting or jarring to come across a Victorian-age persona represented by a clearly anachronistic, artistic representation. I much prefer to see a contemporaneous photo portrait (and I believe it's more "encyclopedic").Glendoremus (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that is a decision made by the editors on the projects. Commons tries to have as many options as possible -- so to me, if the drawings are fine copyright-wise, we should keep them. But that does not mean that someone can't upload the PD source image and switch to that on the Wikipedia article. That is part of why identifying the source can help. Maybe someone writes a Wikibook at some point though and likes the drawing style for their particular purpose, especially if consistent for a series of people, and so uses those instead. Commons should be about giving more options. Also, I think a few of these were made from very small source thumbnail photos, so the larger drawing may still be better than the low-resolution source photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I came across John Sturgeon Mackay today, at the very end of a massive trawl to discover the connection between Sir Henry Savile (he of the Savilian Professorships at Oxford) and Euclid's Elements. Mackay's article on Euclid in 1911 Encyc. Britt. finally made the link clear, and I wanted to find out who JMS was. I was immediately struck by the quality of the artwork, and I very hope that some sort of compromise can be reached. I am happily ignorant of the niceties of this sort of copyright problem, but I will try to get in touch with some knowledgeable people who may be able to help. >MinorProphet (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: the ones based on a clearly PD picture, deleted the rest. --Jcb (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: a few {{PD-UK-unknown}} Yann (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Stephencdickson&oldid=722800429"