Commons:Village pump/Copyright

‎What resolution passes on this one, opinions?
← Older revision
Revision as of 03:23, 31 March 2013
Line 240:
Line 240:
 
::::Not a logical argument, a 1 pixel square image can't have copyright, period. But please feel free to take the [[:File:Redacted hot air festival.png]] sourcing as literal :) there is a point where the cry copyright argument becomes meaningless. [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 23:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::Not a logical argument, a 1 pixel square image can't have copyright, period. But please feel free to take the [[:File:Redacted hot air festival.png]] sourcing as literal :) there is a point where the cry copyright argument becomes meaningless. [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 23:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::: If you scale it down so that the photographer's expression is no longer present, then yes it's OK. But that's likely to be so small as to be useless. Be aware that "transformative" is often taken as to ''purpose'', not necessarily form -- the Obama "Hope" poster looks dramatically different and gives a very different feel, but in the end they are both depictions of a person, so basically the same purpose, and it was not fair use. On the other hand, parody very much transforms the nature of the use -- that is generally more what is deemed transformative. The Swedish painting above would be an interesting case -- it is used to depict the person in part but the focus seems quite a bit different. It would probably be a derivative work but would stand a much better chance at fair use. There was one U.S. case where an artist cut the legs out of model photos from magazines (thus using copyrighted photos) but then arranged them in a completely separate work of art and was sued by the photographs' copyright owners; that was deemed fair use (or perhaps de minimis) since it was relatively small, more irrelevant part of the original photos which were used and the use was very much transformative. As for the photo you linked.... oof. I'd have pretty strong reservations as that very much appears to be the source. If all you did was to apply a set of image transformations to it, then it would be even more likely. Much better to at least draw it with your own hand. Most of the time, copyright law is not a bunch of technicalities where you can find loopholes -- if it "feels" wrong a judge would probably find cause to rule that way. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|talk]]) 02:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::: If you scale it down so that the photographer's expression is no longer present, then yes it's OK. But that's likely to be so small as to be useless. Be aware that "transformative" is often taken as to ''purpose'', not necessarily form -- the Obama "Hope" poster looks dramatically different and gives a very different feel, but in the end they are both depictions of a person, so basically the same purpose, and it was not fair use. On the other hand, parody very much transforms the nature of the use -- that is generally more what is deemed transformative. The Swedish painting above would be an interesting case -- it is used to depict the person in part but the focus seems quite a bit different. It would probably be a derivative work but would stand a much better chance at fair use. There was one U.S. case where an artist cut the legs out of model photos from magazines (thus using copyrighted photos) but then arranged them in a completely separate work of art and was sued by the photographs' copyright owners; that was deemed fair use (or perhaps de minimis) since it was relatively small, more irrelevant part of the original photos which were used and the use was very much transformative. As for the photo you linked.... oof. I'd have pretty strong reservations as that very much appears to be the source. If all you did was to apply a set of image transformations to it, then it would be even more likely. Much better to at least draw it with your own hand. Most of the time, copyright law is not a bunch of technicalities where you can find loopholes -- if it "feels" wrong a judge would probably find cause to rule that way. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|talk]]) 02:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
::::::Well, I disagree on two points, one is the purpose, the only thing we are after is a description of the person, just an identity. The full colour high def image we don't need, fans need that, they like to see the person they like, they go to some trouble to make aesthetically pleasing collages and use them to decorate their websites and so on. While I make a deliberate attempt to dress up the result with the boy's name in Chinese letters inside the image itself, and a border giving proportion, I seriously doubt they'd accept the image shown here for inclusion on the webpage let alone as a banner, so I can't see it as a replacement for the originals purpose in any way, and the dressing up is my own. Do you feel when it gets out there onto google image that anyone will take an interest in it rather than the originals, or ones one tenth as good ?
 
+
::::::The other thing is the method, is it the method or the results, or the effort put into it ? what can matter except the actual final image itself ? A person could enlarge the original image, mix paints precisely and place 800 dots across a canvas with rows to match and make a copy that would certainly be a copyvio when scaled back down to the original size.
 
+
::::::A particularly good artist could sketch the subject faster than I can process, draw and touch-up the image and they'd have a better result I think, wouldn't that counter an 'effort' based judgement ? If a poor artist spends weeks, or a good artist spends moments I suggest it doesn't weigh into the final image being a copyvio. If it weighs in, then it does, if not, it doesn't. All or nothing.
 
+
::::::Surely the medium used is not the defining argument, we all 'feel' that pencil is no problem, but why not pastel, why not oil, and if those mediums are ok, then why not the modern software as a medium. I would think surely it is the result rather than the effort, the process, or the medium. [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 03:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 

 

 
== How /when to enter scanned file of written permission by author to upload ==
 
== How /when to enter scanned file of written permission by author to upload ==

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=93645663&oldid=93644758