geni wrote:
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
Silly question - are "artists' impressions" (pictures attempting to
illustrate a subject in the absence of definitive information) allowed in
Wikipedia? There are topics where we will never have a free image. Could we
envisage letting editors draw an image, stating clearly that it's simply an
"artist's impression"? Would it violate WP:OR?
In most cases you would have a had time coming up with something that
was not a derivative work.
Strictly speaking "artists' impressions" have no basis in reality.
Religious icons fall into that. It would be an uphill battle to
convince me that any picture of Jesus was based on a contemporary
photograph.
A drawing based on a copyright photograph of an archaeological site may
not be an infringement of copyright. Only the representation of
information is copyrightable, not the information itself. If you
shuffle the information about the layout of an archaeological site you
no longer an accurate representation of the facts. The notion that the
site must be interpreted by a trained professional is preposterous;
Wikipedia has already shown that the work of amateurs in many subjects
is every bit as good as what is done by professionals.
Drawings are often more instructive than photographs. Two species from
the same genus of wasps may only be easily distinguished by studying the
patterns of wing venation. Information about this is available and
verifiable, though it is often termed in a special kind of technical
jargon of official species descriptions. Using drawings to represent
this does nothing more than change the way in which something is
expressed; calling it original research stretches the imagination.
Ec