File talk:HSR350x.JPG

Copyright infringement debate

Hi! I drew a prototype train called HSR-350x for the article dedicated to that prototype in order to avoid copyright infringements. But a Wikipedian, Robth, deleted the image because he said that the work was derivative of the original work. I gave reasons why the drawing was not a copyright infringement.

Albeit it be derivative or not, you cannot ignore the fact that all HSR-350x will look the same from a certain angle, and that there are many photographs for the train. Each and one of those photographs are NOT copyright infringements of the other.
Your interpretation would qualify for duplication of an artistic rendering or construction, where the uniqueness of the idea and design identify the subject. This is none of that.
And in order for the drawing to be accurate, it has to depend on an actual photograph. Reasonability bypasses any possibility of ill intention.

Then he said that A drawing that is a synthesis of a number of photographs would be acceptable. A drawing that is a near tracing of one photograph is not. Then I showed him all the images that look similar to my drawing.

They're all from the Daum.net image search [6].

Then Robth said, How was your image created? Certain elements of the composition (the angle, the yellow stripe) are strikingly similar to that of the original coprighted image. So I gave a close description of how I created the image. What do others think? (Wikimachine 21:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The question of "How was your image created?" seems to handle the question. If you, while drawing, copied the image in question, it seems appropriate that that would be considered a derivative (and unless that is allowed the the licensing, then it would be a copyright infringment). However, if, like he mentioned, you studied a number of different images and then drew one of your own, not based on any image in particular, that would qualify more as an individual piece of work. -- Natalya 21:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. But here's the gray line. I searched all the images that had the nose on the right and the rest of the body stretching to the left of the image's frame (b/c I thought that would look best when placed in the right side of the article). And then, I picked the highest resolution image with the best overall "look" and color mix & drew. Would that qualify as "studied a number of different images and then drew one of your own". Please understand, it would have been impossible for me to draw an accurate image while making a "averaged coordinate-mapped" drawing & I focused on accuracy (b/c encyclopedias should be accurate). (Wikimachine 23:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Robth! Could you tell me what happened to the image for the train article? I don't think it violates any copyright laws. (Wikimachine 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The drawing was a clear derivative work of the original copyvio photograph (composition and substance nearly identical). As such, it was an infringement of the original image's copyright. --Robth^Talk 05:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your copyright interpretation's unreasonable. By the way could you clarify what you mean by "composition" and "substance"? I have three other images, which according to you, would be copyright violations, but, by the editors around the articles in which the images were used, were accepted. Here are the following reasons why the drawing is not a copyright violation.

Albeit it be derivative or not, you cannot ignore the fact that all HSR-350x will look the same from a certain angle, and that there are many photographs for the train. Each and one of those photographs are NOT copyright infringements of the other.
Your interpretation would qualify for duplication of an artistic rendering or construction, where the uniqueness of the idea and design identify the subject. This is none of that.
And in order for the drawing to be accurate, it has to depend on an actual photograph. Reasonability bypasses any possibility of ill intention. (Wikimachine 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Could you reply?

A drawing that is a synthesis of a number of photographs would be acceptable. A drawing that is a near tracing of one photograph is not. --Robth^Talk 07:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! I did not trace the drawing, nor did I draw from the original HSR-350x jpg image that the other Wikipedian put.

Here are the following images that disprove copyright violation.

They're all from the Daum.net image search [15].

They're allf rom the google.com image search [19]

If you approve, I'll re-submit the image! (Wikimachine 16:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

How was your image created? Certain elements of the composition (the angle, the yellow stripe) are strikingly similar to that of the original coprighted image. We try to be "good citizens" with respect to copyright law, so it is necessary to be cautious about using possible derivatives. --Robth^Talk 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I searched for an image to draw from on daum.net... I collected what I thought were the best images. Among those (all from the same angle, because I thought it would look best from that angle if it were in the right side of the article), I just looked at one of the images & then first sketched it with a Steidtler 2H pencil & then colored it in with pencils. The paper is very large -about the size of 3 x 2 giant hands stretched out together. (Wikimachine 02:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)) Here are some of my other images. (Wikimachine 02:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately, a sketch of an image is a derivative work of that image, so, unless there is any evidence that the original is in the public domain, the sketch would not be permissible. --Robth^Talk 18:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You read my previous replies, right? I don't think I should ask others as well. (Wikimachine 21:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've asked about it in the help desk. But meanwhile, let me reason with you.

(P.S. The yellow stripe can be seen in more than 1 pic - 3 I think) A photographer takes image of one of a famous artist's paintings without the artist permission (still living). Then that's a copyright infringement, right? There is only one painting with the techniques, styles, and elements of art applied by the artist. And if you were to scan a picture of a car & then release it as your own work, then it's also copyright infringement. But if you were to take pic of the car yourself - even from the same angle & distance, it's not copyright infringement. Nor are each and every one of the pics copyright infringements of the other. Then, even if my drawing is similar to the pics online, under the framework that each and every one of the pics are not copyright infringements of the other (as long as they're not scanned & copied or traced), nor should my drawing be. My drawing is unique. No tracing. The colors I put in the drawing are unique. No sign of green in the actual pic. Nor any sign of blue. I put them. No sign of orange, I used the color. The angles are a little different too, I noticed. There was no ill intention of making a derivative work. (Wikimachine 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I may have misunderstood you, but if your drawing is an artistic interpretation of a single copyrighted image (as opposed to a synthesis of several images that transmits the factual information without duplicating the copyrighted composition) it would be a copyright infringment. Is the drawing based on a single image, or on many? --Robth^Talk 23:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on single image, although I picked several images of the same angle. I think that this was in the highest resolution, so I picked it. (Wikimachine 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Let me add, I tried to draw the train, I didn't try to duplicate. I even checked on other images to make sure that I wasn't missing anything. Look, you can't expect me to make a "golden medium" image using a super computer to map out the "average" coordinates of the defining points. That's completely impossible. The fact that I gathered several images from the same angle at similar distance is good enough. (Wikimachine 23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hey! On the help desk, user Natalya says that "how I drew the image" should answer the question. So I replied with this. Thx. But here's the gray line. I searched all the images that had the nose on the right and the rest of the body stretching to the left of the image's frame (b/c I thought that would look best when placed in the right side of the article). And then, I picked the highest resolution image with the best overall "look" and color mix & drew. Would that qualify as "studied a number of different images and then drew one of your own". Please understand, it would have been impossible for me to draw an accurate image while making a "averaged coordinate-mapped" drawing & I focused on accuracy (b/c encyclopedias should be accurate). (Wikimachine 23:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm on the fence on this one, but if you were examining multiple images and then, as you say, attempted to "draw the train", that might fly. One question, however; are the numbers in the bottom right of the image an element of the image you worked from? --Robth^Talk 00:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I took picture of the image that I drew with a Sony digital camera. So, the time showed automatically. Thanks! (Wikimachine 04:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That would suggest that your image is drawn rather closely from the photograph of the source image; which, in turn, would suggest that it is derivative in nature. I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable undeleting this on my own discretion. If you would like a broader group to examine this, you might try WP:DRV. --Robth^Talk 19:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk#Copyright problems regarding image (retrieved on 1/02/06) User talk:Robth#HSR-350x image (retrieved on 1/02/06)