Category talk:Artwork depicting Natalia Poklonskaya
This is official policy for Fan art on the Commons. Parabolooidal (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
These images are derived from YouTube videos of a press conference given by Natalia Poklonskaya edit
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww9cBExFIiE and other YouTube videos of the press conference. So I think the images in this category qualify as derivative works. Parabolooidal (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Parabolooidal: No, they're not. This has been covered in discussion at enwiki before, and also on Commons. You cannot add categories like this based purely on your own speculation; if you do not have concrete evidence, don't apply categories based on assumptions, you can't just do these things if you can't prove them yourself. When an artist makes a creative illustration of a person, they are creating original content as long as they do not incorporate visual content created by other people within their works. A derivative work is when a work is, without a doubt, directly created from the previous work, and this is not the case; in fact, some of the images even predate the video you have linked. Within that exact video, at 0:20 there is even File:Natalia Poklonskaya by leaf98k.jpg shown on that newspaper the reporter is holding. This image, is without a doubt a derivative work, as it includes imagery of Shakespeare and Bono singing into a microphone, both of which are not the image author's own creativity. You cannot claim that something is a derivative work simply because it might look similar, you need to prove with firm evidence that the image did not contain 100% creativity on behalf of the artist, and that it was derived from somebody else's creativity. Now, if any of these Natalia images were rotoscoped from video or photographic footage, or if they were traced, then I would agree with you, however there is no evidence of this at all.
You cannot attach a category to an entire category claiming that every single file contained within it is a derivative work like you have done here - this is absolutely preposterous, and harms the good faith process in which artists donate their works. You are also falsely making attributions to every single one these works, thereby violating the rights of the creator as stipulated by the CC-BY-SA 3.0 agreement. DW allegations are handled on a per file basis, and marking the entire category as DWs is assuming bad faith on the behalf of everyone else. Furthermore, have a look at the "Derivative works" category you've linked for a moment - that category is for individual files, not entire categories. Not only that, each and every one of its contents contain definite DWs, and are not speculative. Your category tagging makes no sense at all, please cease repeating this. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 02:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- This seems totally ridiculous to me. May I point out that there was a previous discussion on whether to delete this whole category at Commons:Categories for discussion#Category:Natalia Poklonskaya. Closing admin said there is a consensus against deleting all of these images, as well as one against deleting any of these images through CfD.
- Look at Commons:Fan art - the first sentence says unauthorised artistic representations of elements or characters in an original work of fiction. It's one thing to say that some fan-art of Harry Potter, a created character by J. K. Rowling and films produced by Warner Bros is copyright. Natalia Poklonskaya is not a created character. She is a real person. Nobody owns copyright of her - or the idea of her - certainly not some YouTube uploaders. Poklonskaya is in public service and is a public figure. She gives press conferences, interviews, etc. Likewise nobody owns copyright of the idea of Poklonskaya at a press conference. Unless a photograph, or a screenshot of Poklonskaya is uploaded here, or as Benlisquare has mentioned, a 100% accurate tracing of a photograph or screenshot, it is not copyrighted. As long as there are differences stemming from creativity of the artists, it is not copyrighted. Starship.paint (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
