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?
Steve
On 18/05/06, 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?
We have plenty of diagrams of things where it's inappropriate, impossible or ineffective to have a photograph - many of our engineering articles, for example, have drawn diagrams of machinery rather than photographs which don't actually show much.
In some circumstances ([[F-19]]!) an "artists impression" might be OR, but in general terms sketching something is no more OR than touching up a photo of it.
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?
Steve
In most cases you would have a had time coming up with something that was not a derivative work.
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
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?
Are you using "artists' impression" to refer specifically to something drawn by _editors_, or are you including normal (as in exhibited-in-a-museum) paintings? If it's the second option, then clearly yes; just look at any illustrated article about a pre-1850s battle or war.
On 5/18/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Are you using "artists' impression" to refer specifically to something drawn by _editors_, or are you including normal (as in exhibited-in-a-museum) paintings? If it's the second option, then clearly yes; just look at any illustrated article about a pre-1850s battle or war.
Drawn by Wikipedians.
Steve
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?
It's tricky. I had the discussion a while ago on [[Katie Holmes]], where I added this free content drawing from Flickr: http://flickr.com/photos/mricon/2081064/in/set-52272/
Someone later replaced it with a fair use photo. We did argue a bit about WP:NOR, but it also turned out that the drawing was actually traced from a famous photograph of Holmes, rendering the free content argument null.
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.
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.
As for WP:NOR, you could make the argument about any original creation by Wikipedians. We do not. What matters more, especially in the case of living people, is that the original creations are generally considered to be good, encyclopedic and useful.
Erik
On 5/19/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo_%28slang%29
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.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
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?
The drawing should reflect a Neutral Point of View just as much as the text about the person. Pimples that are only a temporary feature should probably be left out, but a hairy nose wart that's likely to be a way of identifying the person should be left in.
Ec
Erik Moeller wrote:
As for WP:NOR, you could make the argument about any original creation by Wikipedians. We do not. What matters more, especially in the case of living people, is that the original creations are generally considered to be good, encyclopedic and useful.
We do not condone verbatim copying of of someone else's writings if that would be a copyright violation; instead we want people to put the information in their own words.
Why should the situation be any different for images. Only the medium is changed. The distinction is between original research and original expression.
Ec