Commons:Deletion requests/Images of PHGCOM

PHGCOM has uploaded dozens of pencil sketches that are derivative works of copyrighted photographs. I notified him of this problem ten days ago, and he was blocked for three days over this and roughly 20 separate prior complaints about licensing issues. Yet he refuses to transwiki any of the material. So the only alternative is to nominate this lot for deletion. Due to the spam filter the web links are not included in this page. See the individual sites for license information. Many of this editor's citations were incomplete, particularly in terms of missing dates. I located most of the absent information through Library of Congress searches. In no case was I able to confirm that the book's copyright had lapsed, so toward the end this list merely notes the missing dates.

From Commons:Derivative_works#Casebook:

’’ Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted, even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you did not take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain).’’

Durova 07:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Image:FootFragmentDrawing.jpg See above.
2. Image:PatnaSofaCapital.jpg Boardman, “The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity” pub. 1996
3. Image:CorinthianCapitalDrawing.jpg Cites a copyrighted site.
4. Image:Ai-KhanoumLadyDrawing.jpg Boardman, “The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity” pub. 1996
5. Image:IndoGreekArtifactsDrawings.JPG Cited to: John Marshall, "Taxila archaeological excavations". Incomplete title: could refer to John Marshall’s 1921 ‘’Excavations at Taxila: the stupas and monasteries at Jaulian’’ published in Calcutta, or the same author’s 1951 “Taxila, an illustrated account of archaeological excavations carried out at Taxila under the orders of the Government of India between the years 1913 and 1934,’’ published in Cambridge.
6. Image:SanchiIndoGreekFrieze.jpg Cites a blog where the image no longer appears but the copyright notice still does
7. Image:BunerReliefHellenistic.jpg cites a copyrighted museum site.
8. Image:BrideToSiddharta.jpg Photographic reference: "The Buddhist art of Gandhara", John Marshall, p 57. Published 1960.
9. Image:HellenisticGroupZarDheri.jpg References the Tokyo National Museum catalogue (under probable copyright)
10. Image:IGDevoteeWithBuddha.jpg Photographic reference: "The Buddhist art of Gandhara", John Marshall, p 57. Published 1960.
11. Image:DevoteeArcade.jpg Photographic reference: "L'Art du Gandhara", Mario Bussagli, ISBN 2253130559, p200 published 1984
12. Image:HellenisticReader.jpg Photographic reference: "Gandhara" by Francine Tissot, 1985
13. Image:ButkaraRelief.jpg Photographic reference: "L'Art du Gandhara", Mario Bussagli, p 236. ISBN 2253130559. Published 1984
14. Image:BacchicErosScene.jpg Photographic reference: "L'Art du Gandhara", Mario Bussagli, p 236. ISBN 2253130559. Published 1984
15. Image:TaxilaStupa.jpg Graphical reference: Boardman, The Diffusion of Classical art in Antiquity, p.132. Published 1996.
16. Image:Phalera.jpg Cites three sources: the Japantimes.co.jp website under probable copyright, Boardman "The diffusion of art in Antiquity", p106, published 1996; and "Alexander the Great, East-West cultural contacts from Greece to Japan", p87., pub. 2003.
17. Image:IndoGreekInfantry.jpg Photographic reference on a coin of Menander II, circa 90 BCE: Image:MenanderIIQ.jpg (deleted, probably as copyvio)
18. Image:IndoGreekCavalry.jpg Copyrighted Web reference.
19. Image:ButkaraPilaster.jpg claims to be a drawing from the original.
20. Image:HaddaTriad.jpg Copyrighted web reference.
21. Image:ButkaraStupa.jpg Reference: Domenico Faccenna, "Butkara I, Swat Pakistan, 1956-1962), Part I, IsMEO, ROME 1980.
22. Image:AzesCamel.jpg Web reference with copyright notice right on the same page [1]
23. Image:AzesIIDepiction.jpg Web reference with copyright notice right on the same page.
24. Image:SeatedAzes.jpg Web reference link no longer works; defaults to the site’s copyright statement.
25. Image:BunerArmedMen.jpg Photographic reference: "The Buddhist art of Gandhara", Marshall, 1960, Fig. 46
26. Image:BunerIndo-ScythianMausic.jpg Web reference with copyright notice right on the page,
27. Image:ButkaraCapital.jpg 404 error on the reference
28. Image:IndoScythiansAndBuddha.jpg Web reference with copyright disclaimer (in German, all rights reserved)
29. Image:ScythianStonePalette.jpg Photographic reference "Les palettes du Gandhara", Henri-Paul Francfort, p68. Published 1979.
30. Image:DancingIndoScythians.jpg Photographical reference: "L'art du Gandhara", Mario Bussagli. Published 1984.
31. Image:IndoScythiansAndBuddha.jpg Photographic reference: "Sculptures from the sacred area of Butkara I" Domenico Faccenna, published 1993.
32. Image:OrlatPlaque.jpg Compare to this academic paper – looks traced
33. Image:CastanaMathura.jpg reference: "The Dynastic art of the Kushans", Rosenfield, Plate 3. (no date provided)
34. Image:GondopharesOnHorse.jpg Reference with copyright notice right on the page.
35. Image:GondopharesProfile.jpg Web reference with copyright notice right on the page.
36. Image:AbdagasesDepiction.jpg Web reference with copyright notice right on the page.
37. Image:StandingAbdagases.jpg Photographic reference: "The dynastic art of the Kushans", Rosenfield, figures 278-279 (no date provided)
38. Image:IndoParthianDevotees.jpg Photographic reference: "The dynastic art of the Kushans" Rosenfield, Figure 55. Personal drawing. (no date provided)
39. Image:Sirkap2Statues.jpg Photographic reference: "Taxila III", John Marshall, plates 148-149. (probable copyright; incomplete title – see above)
40. Image:ParthiansAndBuddha.jpg Photographic reference: "The Dynastic art of the Kushans", Rosenfield, plate 102. (no date provided)
41. Image:IndoParthianStonePalette.jpg Photographical reference: "Les palettes du Gandhara", Henri-Paul francfort, p43. (copyrighted; see above)
42. Image:IndoParthianBuddhistDevotee.jpg Two sketches, two references. One is a copy of this copyrighted site and the other is a copyrighted book (see above for date) Photographic reference: "Sculptures from the sacred site of Butkara I", Domenico Faccena, Plate CDLXXX.b
43. Image:KushanMathuraDevotee.jpg From a sculpture in Mathura Museum, also photographed in "The Art of Mathura, India", Tokyo National Museum publications. (no date provided, probable copyright)
44. Image:KushanCoinBuddhas.jpg Six sketches; one source for each. Probable and actual copyrights.
45. Image:KushanCoinsShakyamuni.jpg Six sketches; one source for each. All copyrighted.
46. Image:KushanMaitreyaTotal.jpg (no source)
47. Image:KanishkaCasketDrawing.jpg (no source, looks like a tracing)
48. Image:KushanPrinceHonouringMaitreya.jpg Joanthan Tucker "The Silk Road, art and history", p.35 (no date given)
49. Image:FirstKnownRudder.jpg Kuangchow Historical Museum (Canton).
50. Image:HanBuddhaDrawing.jpg "The Crossroads of Asia. Transformation in Image and symbol", 1992, ISBN 0951839918

These hand-drawings are generally compiled from various photographic sources in order to provide a copyright-free graphic source to Wikipedia regarding some important ancient artifacts. I do not believe these to present copyright issues. I am ready to provide the multiplicity of sources being used if it can help clarify things, although this will take some time. PHGCOM 09:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way since these are really derivatives of the original public domain work, BUT, we do indeed have some silly rules here on Commons regardless of what would really in court. No one really knows, because just like on Commons, each case needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis otherwise it's just speculation when the law isn't clear. These rules we have are based a few non-lawyers' interpretation of the IP law which may or may not be accurate. Personally, I have trained myself not to challenge issues like these because I realized, without having an intensive legal background, I may just be arguing against some country's screwed up laws and we are merely following them (like we should). We're all just trying to do what we think is right. →Rocket°°° 09:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG uploaded these images months and years ago without ever attributing more than one source for the vast majority of them. As you can see from the example above, this johnny-come-lately claim is farfetched at best. En:Wikipedia can host all of these images legitimately as fair use. Wikimedians who dislike the policy can seek to change the policies; Commons precedent is clear. Durova 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been giving a source everytime as a reference, when possible internet-based, so that people could easily look for an actual image of the artifact and check that it really existed, but not as an exhaustive description of the various materials I have based my drawings on. If I am supposed to document all base material used, I can also try to do that, although I am not even sure that it's really what I'm supposed to do here. I dislike fair use because it is not free and so easily challengeable. PHGCOM 06:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These images aren't free either, and it seems difficult to reasonably claim otherwise. I don't think "I don't like fair use" is a valid reason to keep on Commons. Sorry... giggy _(:O) 10:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a hand-drawing, made in an original style, and representing an original synthesis of a plurality of existing photographs, an image whose copyright is owned by its creator and could be provided as free material to Wikipedia? PHGCOM 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a derivative work of all those base images you used. Are they all copyright-free? Do you have the explicit consents of all the copyright owners to make a derivative work based on their photos, and to license that derivative freely? And that foot image is awfully close to the photos. Sorry, but these drawings will have to be Deleted if you can't demonstrate that this is the case. Lupo 23:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly dude, there's no use arguing (believe me). The consensus here (or at least the way things are) has been that if you use a copyrighted image for reference, then your work is a derivative. Even when you don't use any part of the image. The mere fact that you decided to use the same angles/lighting/whatever is enough. I know the work is 100% yours but we're saying next time change it enough where people can't tell. The key to creativity is hiding your sources well. →Rocket°°° 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC) That was Einstein, BTW. Not to hide anything. ;) →Rocket°°° 01:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Einstein quote! So we're saying that if I provide hand-drawings to Commons, they should be original in style, angle and lighting, and not mention any existing photographs as a reference? Let's say I would only illustrate the outline or spirit of each artifact, not the artistic rendition of them. I could work on that basis, and progressively replace each of the listed images above... PHGCOM 07:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you still have your drawings but maybe you can alter them more so it's not a problem. Like with the foot one - you can add the missing part and change the shading. I mean these are real life things so you can only deviate so far while staying true to reality. I would hate to have you do everything from scrath again. And remember to draw the object not the photo. Anyway, good luck! →Rocket°°° 14:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)A few points need clarification. Given the uploads above, it would be very appropriate to provide multiple sources for future sketched uploads so that Wikimedians can see the degree of originality. Some of the suggestions I see on this thread run counter to the definition of derivative work I learned in graduate school. I strongly urge PHG to put a couple of sample sketches before the community for feedback and guidance before proceeding with large scale uploads. If the goal is to provide Commons with freely licensed images, then the simplest solution would be to take out a few interlibrary loans and use a good scanner: a lot of older scholarly works have lapsed into public domain and contain superb illustrations. Durova 02:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oof... quite the deletion request. There are some very nice drawings in there. In general though... most would be derivative works. The U.S. Copyright Office page on derivative works gives as one example, Drawing (based on a photograph). In other words, if you can identify the source photograph in the drawing (same angle, same shadows, same cropping, etc.) then it would be a derivative work. There is certainly enough added creative expression to qualify for additional copyright, but part of the copyright would still be owned by the copyright owner of the source image. I suppose it may be possible to use several photographs to give you enough information to make an original drawing, though it's difficult -- a Sculpture (based on a drawing) is also defined as a derivative work, which would seem to be a similar case. Still, I think some of the above are OK, in particular the ones derived from images of old coins (like Image:AzesCamel.jpg or Image:GondopharesOnHorse.jpg). For those, the copyrightable material in the photograph is very thin to begin with, and I think is not present at all in the drawings -- they are derivatives of the original coins, but since those are PD, the drawings are OK. The small amount of copyrightable expression in the photographs over and above the coins themselves is no longer present at all. For most though, a transwiki is probably in order. Carl Lindberg 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coins are bas relief works; hence three dimensional, and new copyright attaches to photographs of the items. Commons policy is very strict: even a photograph of a cave painting would be disallowed because caves have uneven surfaces. This user's track record is grounds for skepticism: at en:Wikipedia four formerly featured articles he wrote have been delisted due to sourcing problems, and he is party to an open arbitration case where the legitimacy of research is in question. Durova 07:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we can't take the photographs themselves, but in these particular cases I think the drawings are OK. There is very little additional copyright attached to a photo of a mostly-2D artifact, and in these cases, that part is completely gone from the drawings. They could be done from virtually *any* photo of the coins, not just that one, and so the drawings are a derivative of the coins themselves only. Whatever the user's other issues, unless you doubt the source website's authenticity, these appear to be useful drawings of figures on ancient coins (a handful of the nominated images, anyways). It'd be nice to have free photos of the coins themselves as well, but the drawings could be useful too. I don't think the user's track record enters into it, since the info seems to be externally verifiable. Carl Lindberg 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument appears to be that there are degrees of copyright. What is that based upon? The way my coursework taught the subject, copyright either attaches or it does not. If the photograph is copyrighted then duplications are derivative works of the copyrighted material. Could you link to the policy page where "it'd be nice to have" enters into the equation? Durova 12:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that never enters the equation, though that argument would be a lot easier to counter ;) Coins most definitely are 3-D, because if they weren't, you wouldn't see any of the design. We can't compare it to paintings, which may be way more rigid on the surface depending on the amount of paint or whatever, because in those it's really the color that makes the image. However, with coins, it's true there's very little depth. All photos and drawings will be very very similar. It's not degrees of copyright, it's what gives those images a copyright. Take the Google logo for example. Very simple, yet copyrighted. Why? The way the letters are styled, not the letters themselves. If this wasn't the case, this would be a copyright violation: Google. It just like the drawings themselves, there's new copyright on them but not entirely the authors. Some of the copyright belongs to the photographers, the original sculptors, and of course the public. So yeah, I guess it's degrees in that sense. →Rocket°°° 15:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to the discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2007Dec#Wrongly_decided_deletion_debates.3F. Please identify what original creative input you see in this set of 50 uploads that exceeds that example or other sketches that Commons has deleted as derivative works of photographs. Durova 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. :) I already had similar arguments to no success. I'm not a lawyer. I'll just get frustrated trying to convice people who already made up their mind. Delete them all. →Rocket°°° 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "degrees of copyright"... maybe that wasn't worded well. What I meant was, the copyright in the derivative work only applies to the additional original expression. From the same Copyright Office link I gave above: The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material. In this case, the photographer has no copyright over the design of the coin itself, only the additional aspects added by the photograph -- angle, specific lighting creating certain shadows, framing, etc. To be a derivative work of the photograph, at least some of those additional elements must be present in the new work as well -- if not, then it is not a derivative work of the photo. The drawings based on the coins appear, to me, to have none of that but are instead a generalized version of the coin design itself. The drawings would be a derivative of the coin designer's work if that was copyrighted, but it is not, so those drawings appear fine to me.

As a contrast, there is the image you put in the top right of this deletion request. That clearly contains the additional expression from the photograph; in fact you were easily able to identify the exact photograph it came from due to the angle, shadows, choice of cropping out one toe, etc. That is obviously a derivative work of the photograph, and we would need the photographer's permission to keep the (derivative) drawing here. Of the 20 or so I looked at, most fall in this category, and should be deleted (and maybe transwikied first). It was only the handful of the coin images that I felt differently about, since they seemed to be a representation of the coin design only, and not specifically that photograph of the coin. The amount of "additional expression" in a straight-on photo of a mostly 2-D object is usually very, very little, which is what I meant. In the case of a purely 2D work, it drops to zero.

For one more note, 17 U.S.C § 403 requires, for a derivative of a US Government work, identification of exactly what the modifications were, so that third parties know which parts they can extract and not violate the copyright on that additional expression. The law's notes go into more detail. (The penalty used to be the loss of copyright on the additional expression as well, but due to later changes in copyright law that is less clear to me now -- it may now simply be the loss of ability to sue for damages.)

If you are arguing that the user's track record makes it likely that they are a derivative of some other, unmentioned work, and not the image linked to, I could maybe see that. In the case of the coins though you mention the copyright statement on the source site, which indicated in that case you thought the user was telling the truth (which seems likely to me as well, in that case). As for the discussion that you linked to on the L. Ron Hubbard derivatives, yes, those should have been deleted. You'll note that I did vote for deletion on one of those original requests, except that it had an OTRS ticket where the contents were unknown, and so I did not know if they were significant or not (i.e. permission from the original photographer). Carl Lindberg 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things to bear in mind with these coins: these are rare items, each bearing idiosyncratic marks from hand manufacture from centuries of wear. Can we treat material of this antiquity the same as generic pocket change? I'm not sure whether an experienced dealer could recognize one particular example from another. It's possible that some of these coins may be visibly unique. Durova 02:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, but how would that affect copyright? That has long expired. Marks due to wear are not creative expression. Carl Lindberg 02:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The public domain status of ancient art isn't in question; it's the uniqueness of photographic duplications. The way I understand policy, any duplication of bas relief work is three dimensional and the 3-D clause applies. You argue that coins are an exception, apparently by saying they're similar items. I have doubts about the merits of that assertion, and one of those doubts is that coins of great antiquity may not be so similar as all that. Durova 04:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, we may be misunderstanding each other. Yes, the photograph of the coins may be copyrightable, and we shouldn't copy that to commons. I'm saying a few particular coin drawings listed here are not derivatives of the photo. It's certainly possible to make a drawing which is a derivative of the photo, and that would not be allowed here either. The drawings in those cases are not recreations of the photo, or even the entire coin, but an interpretation of the design on the coin -- which is a derivative of the coin only, and not the photograph itself. The photographer does not own the copyright of the coin design, so that can be recreated, I think. Carl Lindberg 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also started a thread at Commons talk:Licensing#Metropolitan Museum of Art about some other images that PHGCOM has uploaded. Specifically: The MET states that though photographs are allowed within the museum, that those photographs may not be used publicly or for commercial purposes. "Still photography is permitted for private, noncommercial use only in the Museum's galleries devoted to the permanent collection. Photographs cannot be published, sold, reproduced, transferred, distributed, or otherwise commercially exploited in any manner whatsoever."[2] I had cautioned PHGCOM about uploading images of 3D objects from the MET. However, he rightly pointed out that there is a rather large category on Commons of other images from the MET: Category:Metropolitan Museum of Art, many of which are obviously 3D images (though granted, many of the images have been uploaded by PHGCOM, over the last couple years). Further opinions from other experienced Commons folk would be appreciated, to help sort this out. --Elonka 17:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precision: a lot of this is misrepresentation again. I have only started uploading my photographs of the MET three months ago, not over 2 years as stated above. And from what I can tell, my images only represent about one tenth (10%) of the total number of images from the MET. PHGCOM 08:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's start closing this up with deleting the obvious ones. Please don't say all are obvious, because then more discussion is needed (however, I would say most are). Let's just take it slow and keep each other in check. - Rocket000 09:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is harder than I thought since most are offline. I guess we should delete those.. The coins ones, I really can't bring myself to delete, they're so different. - Rocket000 10:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone and deleted the ones with internet sources. giggy _(:O) 11:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deleted a few of the ones based on coins, which (as noted above) I don't think are derivatives of the photos, and are certainly far from obvious copyvios. Carl Lindberg 14:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Giggy. Those weren't obvious. :P I think those were ok. Although, sadly, all the ones referenced offline should be deleted because we just don't know. - Rocket000 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, crap, sorry guys. Shall I undelete (and if so, anyone recall which ones?) giggy _(:O) 04:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need. I restored two of the coins ones I think are ok: Image:AzesCamel.jpg and Image:AzesIIDepiction.jpg. I think it's ready to be closed (see comment below). - Rocket000 11:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note--from the ongoing arbitration case on en:Wikipedia en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance/Workshop#PHG_banned, comment by arbitrator Blnguyen:

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review also discussed a former FA, in which a large proportion, 30% + of the footnotes looked up in books that were in libraries accessible to Pmanderson (talk · contribs) and myself, proved to not back up what was in PHG's article. After the FAR finished, PHG snuck in the incorrect/fake refs again( [84] [85]). At least on IGK article, PHG is either unable or unwilling to use sources properly.

When I researched this group prior to nomination, as many as 5 of the top 6 Google Image returns were PHG's sketches on WMF sites and mirrors. An editor whose sourcing error rate is greater than 30% just isn't trustworthy. Durova 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) OK. I deleted all the ones the had distinct shadows/perspectives and ones that looked traced. I restored a couple (coins) that I really can't say are derivatives of the photos. They are just too different. He could have used any coin/photo to draw those. Right now I'm satisfied with what's deleted and what's kept. Take a look over them and if your satisfied too, feel free to close this up. If not, let's talk about specific ones. Cool? - Rocket000 00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trust your judgement there. I've made proposals on the case workshop, so it's better to leave someone uninvolved to make the calls here. It's a highly unusual situation on en:wiki and I just wanted to make sure the folks here were aware of it. Normally there's a high trust level for highbrow citations. Thanks for your assistance. Durova 00:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Complex close - The majority of images have been deleted, with a few, mostly coin-based, kept. See the above discussion, especially the "partial close" section, for more information. We can revisit this if new information comes up. Drinks on me. giggy _(:O) 01:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]