geni wrote:
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Silly question - are "artists' impressions" (pictures attempting to illustrate a subject in the absence of definitive information) allowed in Wikipedia? There are topics where we will never have a free image. Could we envisage letting editors draw an image, stating clearly that it's simply an "artist's impression"? Would it violate WP:OR?
In most cases you would have a had time coming up with something that was not a derivative work.
Strictly speaking "artists' impressions" have no basis in reality. Religious icons fall into that. It would be an uphill battle to convince me that any picture of Jesus was based on a contemporary photograph.
A drawing based on a copyright photograph of an archaeological site may not be an infringement of copyright. Only the representation of information is copyrightable, not the information itself. If you shuffle the information about the layout of an archaeological site you no longer an accurate representation of the facts. The notion that the site must be interpreted by a trained professional is preposterous; Wikipedia has already shown that the work of amateurs in many subjects is every bit as good as what is done by professionals.
Drawings are often more instructive than photographs. Two species from the same genus of wasps may only be easily distinguished by studying the patterns of wing venation. Information about this is available and verifiable, though it is often termed in a special kind of technical jargon of official species descriptions. Using drawings to represent this does nothing more than change the way in which something is expressed; calling it original research stretches the imagination.
Ec