Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "female anatomy"

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files found with Special:Search/"female anatomy"

[edit]

All of the nominated files are derivative works of File:Female_anatomy.png, which was deleted in 2010 as a copyvio. See also this 2015 discussion. I believe the original source for the diagram is this textbook.

Genericusername57 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is vectorization of these images by User:Tsaitgaist not enough to count the SVG variants of these images as a separate works? How does copyright apply to the layout of organs in the human body? —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The schemas are so generic that saying that this is copyvio is a big assumption. Someone has redrawn a very generic image of human organs. Theklan (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PNG files derived from Tsaitgaist's SVG works should also be kept. For example, File:Locatio vaginae femininae (lingua Ukraina).png is derived from File:Female anatomy with g-spot-en.svg. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep. The File:Male and female anatomy.svg is the basis for all these versions of his illustration with labels in many languages. It is the unlabelled own drawing originally uploaded by Tsaitgaist. It is an SVG. So it was not copied or scanned from the book, but created as a new vector graphic with (for example) Adobe Illustrator or Inkscape. That is why the colour areas and the lines are designed differently. The ugly dot structure on the old picture in the book does not correspond to today's drawing style for anatomical drawings. Tsaitgaist used a completely different style. The fact that the anatomical proportions correspond is because the same body parts are depicted. This cannot be avoided. Tsaitgaist used the illustrations in the book as inspiration, but his picture in no way infringes the copyright of the artists who created the dotted illustrations in the book at that time. It is enough to delete the copies or scans from the book with the ugly dotted pictures. Everything based on Tsaitgaist's SVG has nothing to do with it and must be kept to prevent serious damage to the project, for which there would be no legal justification. Sciencia58 (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. There are definite differences between the alleged source and the base for these images: most obviously, the way in which the different tissues have been rendered is totally different. As others have noted, most of the things that make the "source" image distinctive are themselves not over the threshold of originality for copyright: the pose is a standard anatomical one, and the shapes and position of the various bones and organs are simply a matter of bare facts. We are left with things like the folds in the skin: here, again, we can see very clearly that our artist has tried to do the same job rather than copying anything, and has indeed made their own, different, choices in doing so. I don't see any copyvio here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the reworked versions of both, male and female anatomy. I will soon upload them as new version of the file with the blank image first. They will be so different from the images in the book, that we can replace all the other versions with them too. Please don't delete anything, until I have replaced the present images in the artikels where they are in use. Otherwise I can't find anymore where they belong. Please have patience, I will start uploading and inserting probably next weekend. Sciencia58 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the new unlabelled version of both illustrations. Please look at them carefully and you will realise that the similarities between the old pictures of Tsaitgaist and the drawing in the book no longer exist. I have also corrected the errors in the book drawings that were taken from Tsaitgaist. The pubic bone is a bone and must have the same colour as the spine. In the book it is blue like the abdominal cavity, that was a mistake by the graphic artist who did the book drawing.
The new illustration shows the homologous organs in the same colour, which is important so that they can be compared.
I will upload a new version without the text underneath. Anatomie of male and female human genitalia - blanc.png
Then come the pictures with labelling in the many different languages. Sciencia58 (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Next I will take care of replacing the pictures of the male organs from the book with my new drawings, for which there is a deletion request on another page here. I'll take care of Tsaitgaist's pictures here of the female and there the male organs after that. To replace the pictures from the book soon is more important. Sciencia58 (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This image] is from the book too. It can be replaced with File:التشريح السفلي للأنثى.png now. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio from the book is here too: File:Anus querschnitt.jpg. Magnus Manske's upload bot has accepted it. This shows what an upload bot is worth. It creates problems that would not exist if one person was responsible for each individual upload. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination @Sciencia58: ping me in the discussion if I missed something. Ruthven (msg) 12:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_%22female_anatomy%22&oldid=848347658"