Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shimura.jpg

a) copyright violation; file is a derivative work of http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ypsRytci38I/SJfrfSDyeFI/AAAAAAAAAA8/9wYYiIZOGZo/s320/200px-Shimura.jpg (b) Violation of No Original Research policy, which prohibits user-created art rtc (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Derivative work may be a problem here, but there is on prohibition against user-created works on Commons. Indeed, probably half our images are user created photographs, and many are user-created computer graphics. - Jmabel ! talk 06:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was talking about user-created art, not content in general. See COM:PS. Commons is not an art community; user-created art can be posted on any one of the art communities, like deviantart. --rtc (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This one might be considered a derivative work, although I'm not entirely certain. Original research is not a problem (see COM:POV), and the file is obviously in scope as it is in use on many projects. –Tryphon^☂ 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opposite is true: If the file is in use on many Wikipedias, then it is these projects that are doing things wrong. It violates the core of encyclopedic integrity to use user-created artwork in encyclopedia articles; it is in clear violation of the No Original Research policy, which is valid globally on all Wikipedias, and it is in violation to COM:PS here, which prohibits "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." This artwork has no educational use: The wikipedia user who created it is irrelevant as an artist and so is his drawing then. It has been done that way as a drawing merely to circumvent copyright (based on the false assumption that this "trick" would work). --rtc (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The prohibition is on the upload of lots of pretty but useless artworks, holiday snaps etc.. There is no prohibition on user generated artwork. The drawing may be based on the photo or it may be based on another. It is certainly no tracing of the photo, the pose is pretty generic (and slightly different) and the subject himself is not copyrightable. --Simonxag (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is without question that the drawing is derived from the photo. It does not need to be an exact tracing, it is sufficient that it was derived from the photo. The sole purpose of such drawings is and has always been to circumvent copyright. But you cannot circumvent copyright that way. It is a common technique used to allegedly circument copyrihgt, based on a common fallacy that this "trick" works. --rtc (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, derivative work, wrong attempt to create “free” content. --Polarlys (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]