Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/El Señor Presidente

Derivative artwork

Everytime I read this thread I get confused. The arguments all converge on Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria which is policy. If we can get an image either that is free of copyright issues or we have permission to use, then the arguments become moot.

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.

Like a number of the science pages do, I say create original artwork. A montage / collage portrait of several covers would be original as long as you do not make a derivative work (i.e. copy) but use the covers for inspiration and reference for your own interpretation. Mickey Mouse is held in copyright by Disney but all mice called Mickey are not. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Placing two covers next to each other is not a "collage", I'm afraid. I wish there were free use images here, but there just aren't. Awadewit (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Placing two covers next to each other would not cut it. But putting ones artistic hat on and being creative, one can create new art work referencing the old. I say stop thinking in terms of 'image' and think 'illustration'. This is art school stuff :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid, in a situation like this, the artwork will either be derivative, or original research. Geometry guy 22:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For the bookcovers yes, but we could get someone to draw a portrait of Arevalo based on the photograph. Acer (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Or better yet, to draw a portrait of Cabrera.Acer (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am incapable of drawing anything beyond stick figures and I thought we were discussing the book covers at this point. It would be nice to focus for a moment. Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The images are not 'origianal research'. This is an illustration: a novel illustration referencing images. The artwork is only derivative if it is a copy of the work. Wikipedia is too text based. We need a few more illustrators here. One can not hold copy right to an idea or notion. The idea of derivative artwork is much like the idea of a textual paraphrase. Artfully combine paraphrases from a number of sources and you end up with a novel text that still retains the ideas and notions of the sources. This is what we do here on Wikipedia. It is not a violation of copyright. In the art world, attribution is made just like we do with the paraphrases. Book covers or portrait photos are both fair game as long as you do not create a derivative work. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit and G-guy are correct; even drawings of copyrighted images done from memory are considered derivative works. If you can read legalese, this explains it. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if they are derivative! But an original illustraton created from a similar idea or notion is not. While Peter Pan was still in copyright, you couldn't write a story about a boy called Peter Pan but you could write a similar story about a boy called Peter...see Peter and the Starcatchers. I say be creative. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is becoming a tangential discussion. While it might indeed be nice if someone could create truly original artwork for this page, that is a longterm project. It would still be good to establish whether or not we can have two significant book covers on the page. Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that the book cover issue has pretty much reached a standstill and I'm not sure that any amount of futher discussion will be able to resolve it. Both positions are pretty clear and I'm doubtfull that they can be made to converge. Ultimately it will be up to Raul to have the final say on the matter Acer (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is a tangent that will only make it harder for Raul to read the page; give me a moment please (I just removed the sub-sections) and I'll move all of this to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PS, see WP:FAC instructions on sub-sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)