On 5/19/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In another case on de.wikipedia.org
, a user created many fairly
abstract drawings of celebrities and added them to articles. These are
now all removed. There may have been copyright reasons for that, but
they also looked a bit weird and out of place.
Somewhat like this image?
From these anecdotes I would conclude that we have to
be very clear
that the picture is an original work and not a directly derivative
one, especially not from a single work. In addition, there has to be
general consensus that the picture accurately and neutrally depicts
whatever it is meant to depict. Insofar as it is possible to cite
sources, they should be cited.
It's funny just how true the witticism "Stealing from one is plagiarism,
from many is research" is. :)
Would we have any guidelines about how "sympathetic" to be to the subject?
Is it ok to leave pimples out? What expression should they have? What if
there are two choices of image for the lead?
Well, I suppose these battles exist anyway.