Commons:Deletion requests/File:Third imperial Fabergé egg.svg
Sorry for that DR, you make fantastic work with your vector drawings. But the copyright of photographs disappears not, just because you recreate it as SVG. You made your SVG from this photographs by Wartski Ltd., which are copyrighted.
Or you send a permission to OTRS that you have personally seen respectively photographed the egg and made your vector version therefrom. Ras67 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I consulted a number of photographs of this egg before creating this image. While I agree it does resemble the copyrighted picture created by Wartski, it also resembles a dozen other images taken by other people because this is how this object looks and this is how any image of it would look if viewed from this angle. I don't see any way around this. You can take into consideration that various parts of the image are based only on my own perception of reflection of dark and light off of curved polished metal surfaces, the fact that my diamond doesn't actually resemble the one on the photographed object (which I was not able to imitate), the shading used on the bows (again, curved metal surfaces), the arrangement of the petals in the flowers (which I interpolated and then reproduced as SVG symbols before breaking the symbol links), the appearance of the individual leaves (again, interpolated and reproduced as symbols, then broken), the pattern of light across the top of the object (Wartski's image shows the highlights almost reaching the very top, mine don't quite make it that far), the grains on the pedestal legs (made with an Illustrator pattern, rasterized, and then converted to SVG specks using Illustrator's Image trace function), my numbers on the clock (for which I used a similar font which I then had to modify by hand in order to make them resemble, non-identically, the numbers in the watch face), and the placement of the watch hands (which was entirely guided by my own artistic sense of where these should be placed and how they should look, while remaining true to their actual shape and size). If you look, you will also see that my lions' feet are a poor match with those of the original object (I had to interpolate these artistically as well). Heck, I even had to play with the overall height and width of the egg in order to make it fit into the pedestal and still look like an egg, causing my own egg to be a little too squat (sorry about that), all of which required artistic and creative judgement. Of course it resembles photos of the Third Imperial egg— because that is what is meant to represent, and which is evident by looking at a number of different pictures of the same object, all of which, if taken from the front, look very much like my image here, yes? I have never seen or photographed a chicken embryo inside of its egg, but by looking at a dozen different images of different chicken embryos, I was able to construct one; I have never photographed a nautilus, but by examining various copyrighted pictures and copyrighted textual explanations of their anatomy, I was able to construct one; I do not see any other way one could depict this particular object from the front which would not very closely resemble the Wartski image: with the object properly facing front, taken from just above dead level, and with a light on, this is what you get. Every time. (More or less, at least, because as I've said, I still made a hundreds of artistic choices in my own representation, while trying to retain as much accuracy to the object as I found reasonably possible). KDS4444 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, where is the threshold between a derivative work from one or several copyrighted pictures and a free depiction of that object? I believe we need an assessment of a lawyer. Maybe it needs an alteration of the viewing angle or of the lighting/shadowing. --Ras67 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think that is a very interesting and good idea— if you are right, then I need to reorient my thinking when I create images in the future (and I will be very grateful for knowing!). And if I am right (which I am not entirely certain of), it would be good to have that reiterated. How we will interest a lawyer, I know not. I know that there are some places on Commons where we can ask questions about copyright and derivative works, and of course this very deletion discussion should attract the attention of some editors (not necessarily lawyers) who will at least offer their opinions. I am open to suggestions, if you have any. Would be great to have a solid answer! (and I don't mind being wrong, so long as I can understand why). KDS4444 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Kept: If, as KDS4444 says, the svg was created from several photographs, but took only facts -- size, shape, and details, from the photos, and created lighting and reflections unique to this drawing, then I see no infringement. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
