Commons:Deletion requests/Harry Potter Fan art

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.

Harry_Potter#Fan_art

[edit]

All derivate work. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete yes, I already asked for deletion long time ago. see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Middle earth map showing prominent locations.PNG --Rtc 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This should be speedied--how did it stick around for this long? grendel|khan 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete – Tintazul talk 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I guess there's a couple more at Category:Harry Potter and at Category:Harry Potter Characters. And what about Image:HarryLego.jpg? Lupo 07:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Except Image:Dumbledore.jpg which is used in the WikiProject's template and is on the talk pages of several hundred articles (or is this a Commons-only thing?). John Reaves 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As a newbie to the Commons, would someone mind explaining what "derivative work" is and why these photos are against Commons policy (as grendelkhan implied) or are just wanted off of here? In any case, at least  Keep Image:Dumbledore.jpg as John Reaves noted. --Fbv65edel 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Image:Dumbledore.jpg , it is an old man with glasses, please be realistic, there is no copyrightable derivative element there just because the image is named "Dumbledore.jpg". / Fred Chess 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not an old man with glasses, it is Dumbledore and it is supposed to be him. The facial features of the character from the film are clearly recognizable. So even if this wouldn't be a derivative work of the novel if all context information would be removed about that, it would still be a derivative work of the film. Also, the picture wouldn't be usable for any Wikipedia article about Harry Potter anyway, and certainly not for any other article either. It would violate COM:PS; people can publish their personal art on deviantart if they want to. --Rtc 07:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Ack. Aslo do notice, that if this representation of on old man with a long beard is copyrighted, it is not copyrighted by Rowling as this stereotypical old wise wizard figure goes far beyond Harry Potter (eg. Merlin). Samulili 06:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Some may deserver seperate discussion:
  •  Comment - I have marked several of the images from this series for speedy deletion ([1] [2] [3]) previously. Some of them were deleted, some had the tag removed, and some were taken to deletion requests... where again the results were mixed. I've been told that there are exceptions allowing 'fan art' for certain uses in Germany... if we therefor want to allow it as 'partially free' or 'sometimes free' then there should be restriction tags defining the circumstances where these images can be used. Otherwise we should delete them - not just from 'Harry Potter' but also 'Star Wars', 'Star Trek', 'Doctor Who', 'Middle-earth', and all the rest. Commons needs to decide how free is 'free enough'... there are some countries which would allow free use of ALL images. If we adopted that standard then Commons should allow everything - and in contrast, if we blocked everything which is 'unfree' somewhere in the world we'd be axing alot of stuff which would be fine for use in many cases. Commons has defined that 'fair use' is not 'free enough', 'freedom of panorama' IS 'free enough' (though that seems a bit paradoxical), et cetera... but fan art still seems to be in limbo. The project scope says that "fan art that closely resembles copyrighted material" is not allowed, but is that referring to a picture of Harry Potter closely resembling a written description of him or only two similar images? We need a clearer line. I'd think that line should be, 'free from copyright worldwide'... but if we're going to continue to allow 'less than fully free' images in some cases (like 'panorama' and 'fan art') we should identify each of those very specifically. --CBDunkerson 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It's a pretty bad idea for an encyclopedia to illustrate articles about fictional things with fan art. --88.134.140.64 12:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There are many factual background of this case that are not clear to me, so please be reminded the following is somewhat speculative. I think these fan arts are based on film or illustration in the books. The latter type is probably more strongly protected than the former, because you cannot really copyright your own face or body. When costume and other visual features are considered, real life people could be protected in some cases, I guess. But then, in those uncopyrightable cases, the use of the images or fan arts are subject to publicity rights, I think. Either way, they are not "free" materials. But I am not a lawyer, and I could be wrong. Hence I just comment, not vote.Tomos 10:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all Perhaps rename images to generic names where possible e.g. Dumbledore.jpg-->Old wizard.jpg Brisvegas 08:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping all. This deletion request is hopeless as it covers quite a few photos that are fine (and have not been flagged) as well as two drawings that might be questionable, viz Image:Dumbledore.jpg and Image:Askaban AK.jpg. The former might be a copy of the film version of Dumbledore, and the latter looks as if it could be copied from somewhere, but I don't know where. I'm marking both as keep for the moment, and leaving it open for either to be made the subject of a further individual deletion request if anyone can specify exactly what they are supposed to be copies of (bearing in mind that it's not enough just to say "they appear in the HP books"). --MichaelMaggs 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Harry Potter Black Tree.jpg and Image:HarryPotterFamilyTree.png

[edit]

Maybe derivative work from the story? Or ineligible for copyright? -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm actually rather uncertain about these, but my best guess is that they should be OK. --MichaelMaggs 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Plateforme 9 3 4.jpg

[edit]

Just a sign. Is that copyrighted? -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this Image:Kings Cross Platform 9,75.jpg -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No problem at all: there is no copyright in the general concept of "platform 9 3/4". --MichaelMaggs 18:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Pottakars.jpg and Image:HP books.png

[edit]

No reason for deletion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Harry Potter lines.jpg -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. It's not a copyright infringement simply to make an allusion to a specific book. --MichaelMaggs 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Halbblutprinz-buch.jpg

[edit]

In my opinion a borderline case. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete I do not think that it is a borderline case copyright-wise, but I think that it contradicts COM:PS, since we don't want personal art. Commons is not an art community, is it? People can publish such stuff on deviantart. The only use for such pictures would be the User namespace, since in articles, as a picture with primarily artistic content, it would be original research. An equivalent photo of the book would be entirely fine; I think the user drawing the picture merely did the drawing because he did not see that an equivalent photo would be just as legal as the drawing. --Rtc 07:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we could keep it as a general illustration of a book. At least I couldn't find anything similar in Category:Books. Samulili 07:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is good to illustrate the subject "Harry Potter and the Half blood prince", if the copyright status is ok. It shows the diary of the Half blook Prince, which is a story element. That's why I'm not sure. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, it's a fictional book? then of course it's a copyright violation. --Rtc 08:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no copyright to ideas. The fact that someone has written about a diary, does not make it a copyvio to make an own illustration of it. Samulili 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course there is no copyright on ideas. The picture however does not represent some arbitrary diary, but the diary of the Half blood Prince You can draw some diary, but not this diary that clearly refers to a fictional item from the Harry Potter novel, since that makes it a derivative work. Even if the item would be legal, it were against COM:PS. It were not usable within wikipedia either, since as fan-art it is original research and undermines the integrity of the project. Non-professional art for a non-general topic is not acceptable. We can't sacrifice encyclopedic integrity merely because of copyright restrictions. --Rtc 18:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a derivative work just it because it has the same name. For derivative work, the diary's appearance would have to described in detail, or a similar picture of it would have to be included in the book. Furthermore, I did not suggest that this be kept as an illustration of the diary in question but as a general illustration of a book. Samulili 19:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No! It is the author's very intention for this drawing to represent the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter. That intention inherently leads to derivative work, no matter how the diary's appearance has actually been done. Copyright does not merely protect the representation, but all fictional items appearing within a work. You can of course use the idea of a diary within your own work, but you cannot use the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter within your work. Please see that any attempts to circumvent copyright this way and use elements from the novel inevitably leads to a copyright violation. Copyright law wasn't made by idiots, keep that in mind. --Rtc 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Copyright only protects the form of presentation, not just any idea of a book. Samulili 06:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree about that certainly, and in fact I have said that "You can of course use the idea of a diary within your own work, but you cannot use the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter within your work." Please try to understand my point. --Rtc 07:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How can you say that? You agree that ideas aren't copyrightable yet you argue that the idea of the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter is copyrighted, while it is just an idea from a book. But to make things clearer, could you perhaps quote or show the original work of which this is supposed to be a derivative? Samulili 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • An idea would be to merely use a diary as an element of your own story. However, if you import a special implementation of that idea (be it in your own novel, your own picture or whatever), in this case the diary of the half blood prince from the novel Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (which is the original work you asked for), you are creating a derivative work. Copyright protects not only the mere representation (and in fact not even all of it), but also creative elements of the story. You could perhaps say that copyright only doesn't restrict general ideas, while creative ideas of how to actually adopt this idea into your own story are copyrighted. --Rtc 14:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This illustrates a concept within one of the HP books, namely a particular fictional diary. There is no copyright in a generic idea, even a creative idea. So far as I can tell, this does not copy a specific image from the film either. The fact that we can clearly understand what it's meant to be does not, in itself, make it a copyright ingringement. It may perhaps be fan-art, but it could usefully illustrate an article about the book, in an allowable way, so it should stay. --MichaelMaggs 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Everything not previously listed and in Category:Harry Potter and Category:Harry Potter Characters

[edit]

Shoot and burn. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estas imagens todas feitas por mim foram apenas para ilustrar a Wikipedia, e para tanto fiz os desenhos. Se as regras colocam-nas como "trabalho derivado" e, portanto, passíveis de apagamento, apenas tenho que concordar, sem com isto opor-me em nenhum momento. Agradeço a todos que se dedicaram à exaustiva análise dos meus posts, inclusive pela apreciação das caricaturas e desenhos feitos com base em fotografias - não se pode "inventar" um rosto, ao que me parece - e limitarei minha participação aqui apenas às imagens que forem antigas (domínio público) ou feitas por mim, com minha velha e pobre câmera. Espero, finalmente, que tenhas um tradutor que lhe possa verter estas minhas palavras... Cordialmente, André Koehne TALK TO ME 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's Portuguese. He basically says that if these are derivative works (a rule he apparently was unaware of), then he agrees that his drawings, which are based on photographs, have to be deleted. He also says that he'll limit his uploads to old images and to photos he took himself. Lupo 10:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we shouldn't violate copyright - so it's ok the stuff is gone. But it would have been nice if someone had left me a note on my talk page, that my drawing was deleted - it would have saved me some time used on making another drawing (which of cause I won't upload now) --Malene Thyssen 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought that I had left a note to all of the uploaders. Apparently not. Apologies, -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything that is a obvious copyright violation: I won't close this deletion request and leave it to an uninvolved admin to decide of on the rest of them. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing due to incorrect form of request. None of these images have been tagged, so users have not been put on notice. Many are quite clearly OK, and those that look dubious are not alleged by anyone as having been copied from any specific original image. If any are indeed true copyvios, please nominate one by one, adding the appropriate tag and specifying exactly what is alleged to be the original (eg film version, book cover etc). It's not enough that they represent something described generally in the HP books. --MichaelMaggs 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

More Harry Potter images

[edit]

I have found some more images with Harry Potter stuff that might be problematic and that have not been tagged yet with a deletion template:

I don't know the procedures here on commons so I have not tagged the images. -- Zef 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one. -- Zef 22:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
  • These images need individual consideration, and several of the points made above are far too sweeping. It is trite law that there can be no copyright in an idea as such: copyright protects not an idea but some specific realization, in words, images or sound. Furthermore, there can be no copyright in a mere name, eg "Harry Potter", even if that name is an author's own creation: names are in themselves too trivial for copyright protection. So, what are we left with?
  • The text of the books. Anything which copies the actual words of JK Rowling, from one of her books, will infringe. But a drawing of eg Harry Potter, based loosely on JK Rowling's description of him, from the books, will not. The books themselves have no illustrations. Generic fan-art will normally be OK from the copyright point of view, although it may be out of Commons scope. That's the case (subject to non-copyright issues - see below) even if the drawing is labelled "Harry Potter".
  • The illustrations on the books' covers. Copies of these may infringe - but only if they actually make use of some original features of those illustrations: it's not enough for example to say that fan art infringes a cover illustration simply because both show a boy with black hair having a scar on his forehead. The combination of these three things is an idea not an actual realization. To infringe copyright in the illustration, you'd need to take something more concrete - the boy's expression and position, say. A generic drawing of a black-haired boy with a scar is OK.
  • The films. This is more complicated. While it's true that an actor has no copyright in his own likeness, a drawing that closely replicates a still from the film will infringe the film-makers' copyright in the same way as would a photograph directly taken from the screen. Also, where the film has introduced new visual elements that are not in the books, those may attract new copyright. So for example a drawing of Hogwarts that copies closely the film realization may infringe; a generic drawing which is based on the ideas from the books will not.
  • Non-copyright issues. The manner in which an image is used is of great importance in practice, even where there is no copyright problem. If I create a new and original drawing of a black-haired boy with a scar, and label it "Harry Potter" I should be OK so far as copyright is concerned. But as soon as I try to sell postcards of my drawing, or use it as a cover illustration for a book of my own, I will be in deep trouble. In the UK, US and other Common-law countries, I will be committing the tort of passing off by putting into the market place articles which might well be bought by unsuspecting purchasers who incorrectly think I am associated with JK Rowling in some way, eg that I have been licensed by her or her company. In France and other Civil-law countries, passing off doesn't exist but instead I would fall foul of a variety of unfair competition laws. I might in theory also have to worry about libel, especially if my drawing might be considered derogatory and damaging to JK Rowling's reputation. So far as images on Commons are concerned, the general consensus seems to be that we ignore such non-copyright issues if they will affect only the ultimate downloader and re-user of one of our images; dowloaders have to satisfy themselves that any use they make of one of our images is OK under their own national law.

If no-one objects I'll have a go soon at closing some of these requests on the basis of the above. But it would be helpful to have some more feedback on whether fan art generally is within Commons Scope. Some generic fan art images may I imagine be useful to illustrate Wikipedia articles about the Harry Potter books and/or films.

--MichaelMaggs 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no counter-arguments to what MichaelMagges wrote. I would just like to add that some drawings—while not copyvios of a book text or a movie—may be copyvios of cover art from Harry Potter books. Samulili 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is wrong. A "drawing of eg Harry Potter, based loosely on JK Rowling's description of him, from the books" is a derivative work, and hence a copyright violation, and it is so very clearly. If you "create a new and original drawing of a black-haired boy with a scar, and label it 'Harry Potter'", you have also created very clearly a derivative work, and hence a copyright violation. Anything derived from the Harry Potter universe, and be it with an arbitrary amount of additional creativity and originality, is a copyright violation. Copyright cannot be evaded by such dishonest methods. Copyright restricts neither actual words, nor ideas, not specific realizations; it restricts the creative content. This is a very abstract concept. Fan art, if referring to a specific work (and not merely a general style) is a copyright violation. And concerning project scope, it is unprofessional and heavily against encyclopedic integrity to have fan art in such articles. Let's make the badly needed move to purge this stuff. --rtc 17:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment that "Anything derived from the Harry Potter universe ... is a copyright violation" is perhaps a reflection of your wish that it be so rather than an accurate statement of copyright law. Copyright is not a general monopoly right that protects all and every type of creative content, even at the highest conceptual level; it simply prevents copying of the specific manner in which the author has put those concepts down on paper (or in sound, etc). Of course, it's well-understood that the copying doesn't have to be exact, and also that adding extra original content does not in itself avoid infringement. Since the copying need not be exact, there may be room for argument in borderline cases as to whether the copyist has taken high level concepts (allowed) or has taken but modified the specific realization (not allowed). But it's absolutely not the case that an author is entitled to some sort of all-encompassing protection on anything and everything in the 'universe' she has created. Perhaps your argument would better be based on your evident desire to keep Commons free of fan-art; but that's a different issue. --MichaelMaggs 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, not any and every use of things in the universe s/he has created is restricted by copyright. Quentin Tarantino for example makes use of elements from other works frequently. That is possible because he creates something entirely new, such that the creative traits of the source works are clearly fading away compared to his new work. But that is absolutely not the case for fan art, or anything else that could still be used in an article about Harry Potter. So for the pratical issue we are discussing here, the general statement that "Anything derived from the Harry Potter universe ... is a copyright violation" well holds and gives one the correct idea. --rtc 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the obvious copyvios. The rest have not been tagged, and need to be tagged and nominated one by one, as the concerns many not be the same in each case. Some look dubious to me (book cover copies?) but I can't be sure as no-one has yet alleged anything more than "from the HP books", which is not enough. --MichaelMaggs 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Harry_Potter_Fan_art&oldid=731383585"