Talk:Emi Koyama: Difference between revisions

I uploaded a illustrated portrait of Emi Koyama. It was removed by @331dot, they evaluated “we have no way to know if this is an accurate depiction of this individual or not. Please discuss on talk page”, which is totally fair. There aren’t many photos of Emi Koyama available. Therefore, I’ve gathered some and also two videos from panels she participated in. The video was uploaded in the official Youtube channel of the Department of Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies at the University of Washington (here). She is also in this video from the Youtube channel of the Barnard Center for Research on Women (here). There’s also this photo from her interview for Lux Magazine (here), and this photo from when Emi Koyama was a speaker at the Queer History Month at Ramapo College of New Jersey (here). As I said before, the illustration portrait is part of Ilustratona WELx 2025, a non-profit project where artists draw portraits of women, trans and non-binary people who already have Wikipedia articles, but whose articles don’t include portraits. Ilustratona is a project created by Wiki Editoras Lx. I hope I have shown enough evidence that the portrait is an accurate depiction. As I said before, english is not my first language and this is my first contribution, so I apologize in advance for any mistakes. 065nana (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have linked to pictures and video of her, but I’m still not clear on how we actually demonstrate in the image itself that it is a reasonably accurate depiction of her. I’m asking for guidance at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy.

A photo would be much, much better and obviate the need for this discussion. Could you contact her via email(its on her website, as linked in the article) to see if she would be willing to provide an image of herself? It would be easiest if she took a selfie and uploaded it to Commons herself, but she could also provide it to you for upload(though you would have to work with the editors at Commons to put the proper copyright information). 331dot (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, the illustrated portrait is part of Ilustratona WELx 2025, a non-profit project where artists draw portraits of women, trans and non-binary people who already have Wikipedia articles, but whose articles don’t include portraits. Ilustratona is a project created by Wiki Editoras Lx. Here is the meta-wiki event with the full calendar (here). It is a illustrated portrait because it is part of a illustration project. Here are articles containing illustrated portraits made by project participants: Igi Lola Ayedun, Marlene Monteiro Freitas, Duquesa, Lydia Okumura.Hilda de Paulo, Luan Okun. I don’t know if there’s anything else I can explain, and I accept whatever is decided. 065nana (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to clarify that my illustration was made fully by myself, I didn’t do it based on a singular video of them, I didn’t violated a copyright of a video because I did research and read Koyama’s work because it’s part of the creative process. There isn’t a picture or video of Koyama with de exact blouse I drew, or in the exact pose because I created it based on the style she wears on photos and videos of her. 065nana (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a way that’s kinda my point…..other than her face the appearance is hypothetical. She didn’t sit for you so you could draw your illustration(if she could do that, she would just let you photograph her); it’s your interpretation of her appearance based on other images of her. I would advise contacting her to see if she could provide an image. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s also been raised on the policy talk page discussion I started that it could still violate the copyright of the makers of the video/images you used as a basis for your illustration. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @065nanaand @331dot. I’m bringing here the message I’ve just posted in the talk page of the Image use policy. Sorry for the cross posting.

Accuracy: the portrait is clearly accurate; it is a truthful and respectful representation based in a research of several sources.

Copyright: the image doesn’t reproduce original elements from the different sources in a way that may be considered a copyright violation. Of course, there are elements in common across the different sources: facial features, body expression, hair style and dress style, etc. But those features doesn’t belong to any photographer or creator that previously captured them, because these are the identifying features of the person. However, none of them are directly taken from any of the pictures. If there is a copyright violation, it must be demonstrated with concrete evidence.

Usage on Wikipedia: this is a valid contribution to Wikipedia, since it is a correct and accurate representation of the person, and it is the only free image we have. A photo would be preferred (but not mandatory), but until we have one, this accurate drawing can remain without creating any confusion to readers. If someone contact the portrayed person (and I kindly invite any of the editors engaged in this article to send that request) and they provide a photo, then editors are welcome to change the drawing for the picture; that would be much appreciated and celebrated. However, the drawing must remain available on Commons as an option for reusers.

Educational purpose: the aim of the image is to represent the portrayed person in such a way that people can learn who they are, and also to have access to an accurate, free of copyright, representation. The drawing was not made to demonstrate the artist’s skills or to express their particular point of view, but to contribute to Wikimedia projects, to which they have donated her time and effort.

Consensus about drawings to illustrate Wikipedia: this is not a caricature or a cartoon, but a serious portrait. Even when it depicts slightly creative elements, it keeps the facial features and body proportions without exaggeration and without satiric intentions. It keeps the essence of the portrayed person in order to communicate who their are and it is functional to this aim. For these reasons, the illustration doesn’t violate WP:BLP. Of course, photos are preferred, but for many people from underrepresented groups, photos are not available online under a free license. Finally, many drawings on Commons are in use to illustrate different Wikipedias, Wikidata and other wikiprojects (as an example, just see this GLAMorous link for the Commons category Portraits of women, that shows 1533 files used only in Wikipedia in English).

Hope this opinion is helpful to keep the image in the article (until we have a good quality photo that can replace it). Mariana Fossatti (WK?) (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are someone- why don’t you send Koyama an email and ask if she could provide a selfie? (I had written more which I will transfer to the broader discussion, so this can just stick to this particular article) 331dot (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[here via the IUP discussion] – we have no way to know if this is an accurate depiction of this individual or not. Please discuss on talk page is not a sensible reason to remove. The way you can determine it is to google the person. If a person’s image is unavailable, per WP:OI/WP:AGF we kind of need a reason to doubt it’s an accurate depiction. Based on my quick googling, I don’t have reason for that doubt — it seems like a reasonable depiction to me. Absent concrete reason for doubt, apart from the simply fact of it being a user-created illustration (or someone obtaining a photo), it should just be restored. Sometimes we don’t have a free photo, in which case a free illustration has to do. We do allow illustrations, even when created by users. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those same things, and I agree there is a resemblance, but the coloring differs and the background is purely hypothetical. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]