This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either
free content or
non-free content usage concerns.
Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the
non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to
deletion review.
What not to list here
For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is
uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{
subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the
speedy deletion templates. See the
criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without
rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{
db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
{{
now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use
speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a
VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{
subst:npd}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under
criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under
criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the
Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for
speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Instructions for listing files for discussion
Use
Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
Follow this edit link and list the file using {{
subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}}~~~~
Leave the subject heading blank.
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{
subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use
this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{
Ffd|log=2024 July 14}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{
subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}
Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
For multiple images by the same user, use {{
subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}}~~~~ (can handle up to 26)
If the image is in use, also consider adding {{
FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2024 July 14}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the
threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a
freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is:
too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at
Media Copyright Questions.
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format * '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~ where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that
polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining
consensus is through
editing and discussion, notvoting. Although editors occasionally use
straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more
binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to
Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See
Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps
here.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by
AnomieBOT (
talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Strong Keep, this painting is the subject of its own page where the image is irreplaceable and illustrative (too many artwork nominations at once of major artists such as Matisse and Derain, please limit your noms, thanks).
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - There are some odd quirks that come from the "publication" rule, and I believe the nominator is correct to question these images. There are definitely instances where a work this old can still be copyrighted in the United States. It's not super common, but it can happen, mostly when it comes to works first published outside the U.S., and usually only in select American states that are under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit (you can read more
here). Unfortunately, because WikiMedia's HQ is in California, that means all US WikiMedia entities are also subject to the 9th circuit's ruling. So to prove that these works can stay, someone would need to find the first instances of their publication abroad and/or in the U.S. If you check the
Hirtle chart, I believe this work and the other Matisse paintings Lithoderm nominated would be categorized under "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations" in the first "Special Cases" example ("1 July 1909 through 1978"). I would note that these deletion requests may seem a bit overwrought, but the nominator is not incorrect to point out the issue. Les Héritiers Matisse (the legal managers of Matisse's estate) still claim copyright over basically everything Matisse made and they're represented by the Artists Rights Society on U.S. copyright issues, so they clearly care about their copyright. Obviously they're probably just making broad claims to preserve (read: profit off) as much intellectual property as they can and ward off would-be re-users of the artworks, but they could definitely be right about any number of the works. I agree that Wikipedia would be better off if these images were kept. But without proof, we can't know for sure that these would pass legal muster as public domain in the (entire) United States. They can always be re-uploaded as non-free fair use images if need be. -
19h00s (
talk)
22:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Adding this as a comment since the legal analysis seems rather complex, but at least we have some history on this one: Bought in 1910 by a German collector and then on public display for three decades, is what the SLAM page says.
Felix QW (
talk)
09:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The graphic design would most likely not meet the minimum requirements for copyright protection and would therefore likely be free in the United States. Maybe you need to consider the minimum copyright protection in its country of origin. If it is in the UK or Australia, you need to use the target {{PD-USOnly}} and do not move it to Wikicommons. If the country of origin is Canada, use the template {{PD-textlogo}} instead of the original fair use label and move it to Wikicommons.
Fumikas Sagisavas (
talk)
02:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Status quo, keep as non-free. This is a complex design and IMO the page flip in the corner is sufficiently creative to push it over US TOO. -
Fastily09:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This is also from Russian state museums, and was apparently purchased by the museum from a Russian collector in 1918 (
[1]).
Felix QW (
talk)
09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Commons' general opinion is
here; publication can generally be assumed shortly after painting. Certainly when things like this leave copyright in their home country, I envision no problem uploading to Commons.--
Prosfilaes (
talk)
21:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't necessarily agree with that, not for works of fine art anyway. Unlike commercial photographers, fine artists often create works and keep them for themselves for an indefinite period. Without any evidence either way, I don't believe that a work of fine art can be considered contemporarily published beyond significant doubt.
Felix QW (
talk)
07:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Acquired by the Phillips Collection, where it is still on display, in 1923
[2]. So if sale and exhibition are considered publication, then this should be counted published in 1923.
Felix QW (
talk)
07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"File:Flor Contemlacion" is essentially a cropped and enlarged version of "File:Flor Contemplacion after arrest.jpg" and two non-free files providing essentially the same encylopedic information to readers aren't need per
WP:NFCC#3a. The cropped version is currently being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of
Flor Contemplacion while the uncropped "after arrest" version is being used in
Flor Contemplacion#Background to arrest. The cropped file does appears to have been upload prior to the uncropped version, but the uncropped version does perhaps provide more context and is a true representation of the photo that was taken. For that reason, I think that the uncropped versoin is probably the one that should be kept except it source url doesn't appear to be working to allow for verification of
WP:NFCC#4. Regardless of which of the two is kept, both aren't needed per
WP:NFCCP. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
05:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep cropped version, discard other. The uncropped one is poor as an identification image which it is currently being used for.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
04:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Adding this as a comment since the legal analysis seems rather complex, but at least we have some history on this one: Bought in 1912 by a Russian collector and then on public display from 1918, according to
the Impressionist gallery.
Felix QW (
talk)
13:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Although converting the file's licensing to non-free is worth discussing, it's not a panacea given that the file is currently being used in six articles and on one user page. If converted to non-free, the file will need to be removed from the user page per
WP:NFCC#9 and
WP:UP#Non-free files. That leaves the non-free uses in the six articles to be assessed since it shouldn't be assumed that adding a rationale for each use autoatically means the use is policy compliant per
WP:JUSTONE. The use in
Goldfish (Matisse) seems OK per item 6 of
WP:NFC#UUI, but it could be pretty hard to justify the other non-free uses. The non-free uses in "
Fish", "
Fish in culture" and "
Goldfish" seem near impossible to justify and almost certainly would need to go. The use in "
Henri Matisse and goldfish" might be justifiable, but there are other reperesentative free examples of the same subject matter being used which might mean this particular file is not needed. The same could be said for the use in
Henri Matisse. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
21:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Convert to non-free For this one, it would be difficult to justify contemporary publication, as one of the MoMA curators wrote
[3]:
In fact, this is a painting that he didn’t exhibit until 1949, 35 years after it was made.
Unless it emerges that this exhibition happens to have been in the US and did not pass the required formalities, I do not think we can say that this painting is in the public domain in the US.
Felix QW (
talk)
07:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: As I posted in the FFD thread right above this one, converting the file's licensing to non-free is worth discussing, but it also means the each of the individual eight uses of the file would need to be assessed. Since three of these uses are not in the article namespace, they fail
WP:NFCC#9 and
WP:UP#Non-free files and the file will need to be removed from those pages. Of the remaining five uses (
Color field,
Museum of Modern Art, View of Notre-Dame,
List of works by Henri Matisse and
Henri Matisse), there doesn't seem any way to justify non-free use in "Color Field" given the broad scope of the subject matter and item #6 of
WP:NFC#UUI. The same applies to the use in "Museum of Modern Art" with the added problem of
WP:NFG. The use in the list articles has issues with item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, and
WP:NFLISTS and
WP:NFTABLES since non-free content is, in principle, pretty much never allowed to be used to illustrate individual entries of lists or tables. That leaves the non-free uses in "View of Notre Dame" and "Henri Matisee". Using an non-free image of a painting file for primary identifiction purposes in a stand-alone article about said painting is almost certainly policy compliant, but using the same image in an article about the artist who painted the painting runs into problems with item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, particularly since there are multiple free equivalent images being used in the article as representative examples of the artist's work and style. Simply posting things such as "convert to non-free" or "Please add a [non-]free use template to the article" isn't really helpful when the file being discussed is being used on multiple pages because not each of those particular uses is automatically non-free content use compliant
just because a non-free use rationale is added for them. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
10:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the detailed analysis,
Marchjuly! I was merely commenting on the copyright status and usually defer to the expertise of others regarding the eligibility for non-free use. I seemed to me that non-free use on its own article page is almost certainly fine and that therefore deletion is not a plausible outcome. However, I also concur that it will likely have to be removed from the other pages that it is used for, per your detailed rationale above.
Felix QW (
talk)
11:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Dubious copyright-related information. Author/creator was listed as
Vivienne Medrano, which is the creator of the show (
Hazbin Hotel). However, following
the fandom URL link provided by the uploader as the image source, the creator is “John write”, not Vivienne Medrano. Also, the description of the non-free image usage was “Promotional still of the character Alastor”, which seems odd, given it comes from Fandom and not the show nor the show creator. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Creator delete I'll freely admit this was a mistake on my part and I assumed it was a promotional still as per common for such subjects and not fan art. I do feel though the article in question needs a proper image, I may clean up a screenshot from the show for such purposes later.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
19:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Edit I've replaced the image per the above struck comment with a cleaned up screenshot, and adjusted the fair use rationale to reflect that as the source complete with a link to the video and a time stamp for additional verification. @
WeatherWriter: I trust this will suffice now?--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
04:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See
Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) Even if the photo is free, the painting itself may not be. Commons is pretty cavalier about this, but should we be?
grendel|
khan18:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep, a major 1904 Matisse painting which has its own article and thus is irreplaceable as a page illustration. Should we be? 1904!
Randy Kryn (
talk)
12:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure which part of that section was unclear, but if that's the meaning you took away it should be reworded. Are you looking at the second-to-last paragraph that's specifically about sound recordings? — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean the section quoting from another text: “publication occurred when … the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public...” (Nimmer, § 4.039(A) Internal citations removed.)Felix QW (
talk)
17:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The reason I remembered it was that it was pointed out to me in a very similar situation over at Commons, where I was the one claiming the copyright situation was unclear.
Felix QW (
talk)
17:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There has also been some response on the related Commons thread opened by the nominator
here. The general message seems to be "as long as the painting somehow left the artist, it's probably fine", although the details seem to be washy even to the more expert Commons commentators.
Felix QW (
talk)
09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - the copyright question on this is clear: absent evidence of publication, we have to treat this as unpublished. As such, it will enter the public domain in January 2025. "Publication" for a painting is typically synonymous with reproduction. If it's copied, if it appears in print, etc. Yes, that means most old paintings were not published. That doesn't mean they never enter the public domain, it just means that claims about public domain that assume publication are invalid. They enter the public domain (in the US and France, at least), 70 years after the death of the author. Not !voting delete because it sounds like someone's going to make an NFCC claim -- and that's a whole different question. — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. Also, MoMA claims copyright; it's unclear how valid that is.
grendel|
khan18:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep, seriously? This is one of Matisse's most famous works, it has its own page (as do most of the paintings you are nominating) and thus is irreplaceable as an illustration for that page.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
12:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. My understanding from reading
c:COM:Public art and copyrights in the US is that the definition of publication given at
Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication is that of the current law, in force from 1978 onwards. Prior to that, the concept of publication was much wider, and for instance included selling the original work as such. This renders the painting under discussion published in 1910, as it was sold upon completion to an art collector in Moscow.
Felix QW (
talk)
15:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. Also, the source link is invalid, so I'm not sure if the museum claims copyright, if that's valid.
grendel|
khan18:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relicense as non-free This seems to have been purchased by a museum from the painter in 1945, and I have been unable to find any exhibition record before that date. It does seem to be discussed sufficiently in its own article for non-free local use.
Felix QW (
talk)
20:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. This image is used on 11 articles, probably most can be templated for fair-use. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment According to the MoMA page linked in the nomination, this image was acquired from the artist in 1926 and sold to a collector in London. So if we follow the line that that sale of the original constitutes publication prior to 1978, then this image has been published by 1926.
Felix QW (
talk)
12:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then.
grendel|
khan23:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment All I have been able to find out so far was it currently seems to be located in the chamber of deputies of the Province of Salta. Should it have been made for this purpose, it may be considered to have been published in 1918.
Felix QW (
talk)
12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not exactly sure that it is clear that this is actually licensed under the BSD license? If it is under the BSD license, I would expect it to be under the two-clause BSD license, because that is the license the software uses. But I am not finding anywhere on the website where it indicates the logo itself is licensed under any of the BSD licenses. Therefore, I support relicensing as non-free for use in
FreeBSD. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/they)
00:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Re-license as non-free – Reading the Terms there, the logo is clearly non-free. Implicitly, a BSD license does not apply to the logo, and the Term doesn't mention a Creative Commons license. Rather the Terms' agreements imply that the Foundation still retains its copyright of the logo and wouldn't waive most of its rights just to allow anyone to use the logo freely or loosely. On the other hand, I can't help wonder whether the Foundation would still allow the use of the logo in this project (especially for just one article).
George Ho (
talk)
04:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This image was removed from the article in favour of
this file from Commons. However, I find the copyright tagging on that file dubious and nominated it for deletion at Commons. So maybe if we delete the local file here we can undelete should the Commons file be deleted there.
Felix QW (
talk)
20:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree with above. Using only the top image is misrepresenting the article topic. Just do something with them side by side like the two examples above.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
04:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This non-free image is being used in two articles with the same rationale that it is for primary visual identification. It is indeed being used for that purpose for
Kuantan, and I recommend we keep that usage. However, its use in
List of cities in Malaysia is entirely decorative and is certainly not identifying the topic of the article which is the list and recommend to remove the usage in the list as it fails
WP:NFCC#8.
Whpq (
talk)
03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Stated rationale says it’s used to illustrate subject of biographical article, when in fact the article is about an event and not a person. ꧁Zanahary꧂05:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The event sort of doubles as a biography, involving the victim's life and how it ended, etc. An image is as necessary to understand the event as it is for any biography of a person. Nearly all GA and FA class articles of this type use this same rationale - while OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean anything, FA articles using it generally is a sign it is accepted practice. See
Murder of Joanna Yeates,
Murder of Dwayne Jones,
Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, all FA class event based articles with fair use victim images.
In fact, I can't find a single FA class article of this type that doesn't have an image of the victim. This is standard practice. To remove images would effect hundreds of pages on every single article of this type and requires much wider discussion.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
04:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A notable murder case almost always involves why a person was murdered and their background. It is necessary for the same reasons to identify the murder victim as a biography article, as they are the key focus of the event, therefore fulfilling the same reasons a dead person's biography allows a non free image of them - for identification. Your interpretation is overly literal.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
03:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe the Vancouver logo is very simple in design. Although Canada's copyright law is inherited from the British Empire, Canadian judicial precedents are very different from those in the UK or Australia. The minimum copyright protection in Canada is probably greater than that in the United States, and Vancouver's city logo is unlikely to meet the minimum copyright protection in the United States.
Please replace the original fair use tag with {{PD-textlogo}} and move it to wikicommons.
Merely identifies Britney Spears and two other females in waitress outfits. Doesn't
contextually signify the whole song or the whole music video or text description that can be already understood without this image. Omission may not impact such understanding.
George Ho (
talk)
09:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but that's the back cover of the 1982 (not 1976) UK release. The front cover contains a photo of the Beatles. Furthermore, the back cover contains one of EMI logos, which apparently looks complex enough for copyright, especially upon close-up (
45cat,
ebay).
Although this box set contains multiple non-free cover arts (and thus cannot be moved to Commons), someone could take a photo of the box set and release the photo under a free license, per
WP:FREER.
JohnCWiesenthal (
talk)
17:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a
G12 that was challenged by the uploader after I initially deleted the image. The image is from the web site of the United States National Weather Service. (
source page). US Federal works are automatically public domain. But in this case, the image is not the work of the agency or one of its employees. It is provided by a person named Jeff Sisson as acknowledged in the image gallery credits. The basis for this image being public domain is
this disclaimer page which states that anybody donating photos agrees to release it as public domain. The oddity about the page is that it for the Sioux Falls, SD weather forecast office as can be seen on the page, the navigation breadcrumb trail, and URL. There is no corresponding disclaimer for the La Crosse, WI office which is where this image is from. The language of the disclaimer covers the National Weather Service with no reference to a specific office. Discussion about the status of this image is needed. If kept, the licensing will need to be corrected as this is not PD as a UD government work, but is PD because the author (Jeff Sisson) has made it so.
Whpq (
talk)
18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep – The Commons has had this debate several times before, hence why
Template:PD-NWS exists separately from
Template:PD-USGov-NOAA (
NOAA is the parent organization of NWS). On the PD-NWS template, there is actually a perfect example of why NWS images are PD.
File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg (currently in use on
Tornadoes of 2022) was
nominated for deletion on the Commons on grounds it wasn't PD as it wasn't taken by an NWS employee. To note, the image has a large watermark over it, but not a copyright symbol. That deletion discussion determined it was indeed public domain. In fact, I was actually the editor who question it in the first place only because of the watermark. The statement holds up. If I spent more time digging, I could probably find several more deletion discussions regarding the PD-NWS template, but thousands of images exist under it, because NWS allows users who aren't federal employees to submit images into the public domain. Either way, this is an unwatermarked image on weather.gov, so there is no question that it is public domain. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
WeatherWriter: Thanks for the information. I was not aware of this. My encounters with other federal agency web sites do not have contributor photos released as PD. This nomination is withdrawn as the main concern was the applicability of the PD license. --
Whpq (
talk)
19:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was the person who originally tagged this as F9, based on the contributor's (wrong) choice of copyright tag. And like
Whpq, I did not know that the NWS has this condition for external contributions.
That said, we do not yet know the terms under which Jeff Sissoon contributed his photos. (Archive.org seems temporarily down as I'm typing this.) From one of the Commons cases linked by
User:WeatherWriter above, I can see that the earliest archive date of that policy is 2015.
If we can establish that Sisoon contributed his photos after 13 May 2009, then we should keep
Because we cannot prove either when these terms came into force, nor when Sisson made his contribution or under what terms, we cannot just assume that this condition has always existed, and we must delete
Update: I just realised that the PD-NWS template at Commons documents this disclaimer existing as early as 13 May 2009
[4] -- so that's our new baseline. --
Rlandmann (
talk)
21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Update #2: archive.org is back, so here are the dates we can be certain of:
The Commons' own PD-NWS template is a secondary source that mentions this arrangement existing since at least 13 May 2009
according to its history
Jeff Sisson's contribution to the NWS was made sometime before 19 September 2015
earliest capture on archive.org, but crucially to this discussion, we do not know when. Other submissions on the same page date back as early as 2006, and Sisson's contribution is nestled amongst ones made in 2008, but unfortunately, the submissions aren't in chronological order either.
Unless we can establish (a) when NWS received Sisson's contributions and (b) what terms existed at that time, we cannot prove that this is a free image. --
Rlandmann (
talk)
02:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As a note, older photographs were not taken by the NWS until they started their website. That has been the disclaimer for their website forever, meaning all photos are PD unless noted. This debate really came because it was uploaded to Wikipedia and not the Commons. This is a Commons debate which has already been solved. So my !vote remains the same as this is a PD image and I would have uploaded to the Commons myself and I will probably export it or upload it later this evening to the Commons as a public domain image. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I hear what you're saying, but as far as I've been able to tell, we don't have any actual evidence for this disclaimer being part of the NWS website "forever", only since 13 May 2009. Do you have anything that proves otherwise?
The Commons tag makes perfect sense for any images that were uploaded after that date, but before that date, we can't know what terms it was uploaded under. And in this case, we simply don't know when Sisson uploaded his photo.--
Rlandmann (
talk)
02:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep With all due respect, I don't see how a snippet of a song can't tell readers more about the song. It's the thing itself. There's nothing more informative.
Bremps...07:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NFCC#1, as it is replaceable with a free image. Firstly,
File:Ariane 6 PPH cutaway-en.svg provides more encyclopedic information that this image, and secondly a freely licenced image could be found, as someone with correct clearance could licence a free photograph, or someone like
NASA could licence one appropriately for Wikipedia (under a government free licence). Also, this is not a "historic image" like the non free template claims. Also, this is lacking a valid
non-free use rationale, and unless one is added that demonstrates that it meets all of the
WP:NFCC, then this image cannot be used.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
10:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete I was the editor who removed the prod tag from the file because at the time it was the only representation of the cover version. Now that a more acceptable file has been made, that would should be used instead since the article has a sourced section with critical commentary about this cover version that was the most successful charting version of the song.
Aspects (
talk)
04:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This cover art is of a four-track French EP release (
45cat,
discogs). No two-track single releases use this cover art. Furthermore, the EP itself hasn't been yet proven notable.
George Ho (
talk)
11:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Unfortunately I don't think that this file can be justified as fair use. The photo is not strictly necessary to understand the subject of the article, and the photo itself is never discussed in the article. If the article were about the photograph itself it would be justifiable, but this is not the case.
Di (they-them) (
talk)
00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep the image very clearly articulates information clear than any word can. It also adequately summarizes the events of the shooting, with the bloody trump being whisked away. The subject of the image, the assassination attempt against trump, is the entire subject of the article.
Scu ba (
talk)
00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Showing Evan Vucci's copyrighted image in a cropped and low-resolution format does not satisfy
WP:NFCC#2 because the original image's market role is replaced by any unlicensed edit that still retains the photographer's unique capture of Trump's bloodied face in front of the US flag.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
AP is not a government organization. They are a not-for-profit organization. That means that the public domain exemption does not apply. --
Super Goku V (
talk)
07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
LuxembourgLover: There's a fundamental difference in the situations. Those "raising the flag" pages are about the photographs in question, so the photographs are necessary to better understand the article. There is no page about "Evan Vucci's photograph of Donald Trump".
Di (they-them) (
talk)
00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a wholly fanciful argument that does not jibe with
WP:NFCC. It is beyond laughable to think you can declare something "historical" mere hours after the fact.
Zaathras (
talk)
00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's definitely a historical image. This was the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. You might not consider it history because it happened a couple of hours ago, but everything was "mere hours" ago at some point.
USA1855 (
talk)
01:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. There have been
over 20 in 40 years. Hyperbole is not a reason to keep a non-free image.
Zaathras (
talk)
01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
His argument is indeed flawed in its wording, but, @
Zaathras , I do want to hear when (at least) two people were killed and when something actually hit a President. Please do cite when something other than a plot happened. Not an actual attempt. Something actually serious, like this.
BarntToust (
talk)
01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well-justified in its description (no low-resolution free-use images of this event exist) and the image captures the unparalleled significance of the moment very fittingly for the article. The image from the
murder of Lee Harvey Oswald comes to mind as a good analogy -- alternatives may exist, but the historic angle and context of that one image is undeniable.
HandIsNotNookls (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This image is more historically important than many of the other images I see listed with "Non-free historic image". In addition, the spontaneous reaction was not staged, so the photographer has very little copyright interest in the photograph.
TE(æ)A,ea. (
talk)
00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
First, the existence of other copyright violations is not an argument for further wrongdoing. It is an impetus to propose deletion of those rule-breakers. Second, photographers are not denied a copyright interest in their creations simply because the results were spontaneous.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
BluePenguin18 🐧: No, I think those are justified; it is just that this is more justified than those cases. I presume you haven't read the law? Photography, at its course, is mechanical, not creative; so, for a photograph to be copyrighted, some creative work—known as "authorship"—must occur before the photograph is taken. The main appeal of this photograph—most of what strikes the viewer as copyrightable—owes its origin not to the photographer's choices of angle, camera settings, &c., but to the staging of the rally podium and Trump's action in raising his fist.
TE(æ)A,ea. (
talk)
01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speaking as a law student, this is incorrect. This image qualifies for copyright protection because it is fixed to the medium of a photograph, authored by the human Evan Vucci, is in a copyrightable subject matter of a pictoral work, and showcases originality in its presentation (
US Copyright Office). Accepting that the image is under copyright, US law makes no free use exception on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
BluePenguin18 🐧: You have misunderstood my statement. You have also not explained the basis of your belief that the work has copyrightable subject matter, or the extent of that protection. That is what my response was addressing. As to that hyper-link,
I have already read it, and have read more particularly court cases which address the topic. My comment on "appeal" was directed to originality—much of what could be identified as "original" in the image, its "appeal," does not originate in the photographer's creative processes and cannot thereby be attributed to him through the copyright law.~
TE(æ)A,ea. (
talk)
02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That US Copyright Office document links to a glossary noting that Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) recognized that photographs qualify as a copyrightable subject matter. If you are truly aware of any court cases that limit copyright protection on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator, please cite them.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the image seems to have potential for commercial use & can easily be replaced by a CC image (once one is taken/found). The photograph may be historically relevant, but fair use on Wikipedia seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Jan-Janko (
talk)
00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is the most notable image and is shown throughout the media (or different variations of Trump raising his fist) so it is most informative to readers and the most relevant image to display in the infobox.
Bill Williams00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete One does not need to see an image like this (that is now being used to show "he's a tough guy" on social media) to understand the subject matter. Non-free media of various kinds can be used instead, or something may be released down the road
Zaathras (
talk)
00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I do have to ask, in the context of a shooting, is a strong-looking image bad or unnecessary? No. Also, I'm sure analysis of the image probably will happen, but "they are using it" isn't a good argument imo.
BarntToust (
talk)
01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is essentially the image of the event. If I were asked to choose an image to summarize the event, I'd choose this. It doesn't matter what some people on social media are using it for. This image certainly does help in understanding the event. It shows Trump's shot ear and him being escorted.
Coulomb1 (
talk)
04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: It's an amazing photograph, artistically speaking (and kudos to the photographer), but it's still Evan Vucci's copyrighted image. As such, unless we can get a better, non-copyrighted image, I don't think we can keep it, per BluePenguin18 and Di. Better to not have a photograph. —
Javert2113 (
Siarad.|
¤)00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails #1 in that a free image depicting the event could easily be made available at any point soon. Fails #2 in that it's clearly a popular image of a current event and the wire photographer will be selling it to newspapers around the world for Sunday/Monday papers. Fails #5 and #8 in not adding to encyclopedic understanding of the event as of present. Also fails #8 if the premise is that it's an historic image: the event happened like two hours ago and we can't be certain what happened. Significance cannot possibly have been established.
Kingsif (
talk)
00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per arguments above - it's too soon to be sure that free media will not be available, and I don't think the photo is strictly necessary to significantly increase understanding about the topic. As such, fair use shouldn't be claimed.
Gazamp (
talk)
00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This seems to me like a unique photo of a historic event, which happened over the course of a couple minutes, and of which it is now permanently possible to find a replacement photo. Like, how are we supposed to go take a freely licensed replacement photo of an assassination attempt, send a second assassin? I have looked over
WP:NFCC and I don't really see anything to indicate this is an unacceptable piccy. If there really is something in there specifically proscribing this, let me know and I will change to delete, but for now I am in favor of keeping it. jp×
g🗯️00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Noting that the article now says: An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards. Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history". Another image, as reported by Axios, taken by Anna Moneymaker, was spread by his prominent political allies as a rallying symbol."
For which image? The Gucci one or the Moneymaker one?
The Daily Beast has a different angle captured by Brendan McDermid. I think it's far too early to tell which, if any, of these are historic enough to meet
WP:NFC#CS.
Adabow (
talk)
02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There were tens of thousands of people at the rally, so it is possible, even likely, that a free equivalent exists or could be created (fails NFCC 1). A very recent event and us hosting this doesn't respect the commercial value of the image (fails NFCC 2). I also don't think it meets NFCC 8 (contextual significance) in the way that it's currently being used (infobox, describing Secret Service escorting Trump away).
Adabow (
talk)
00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete copyrighted image at event with many attendees, likely another acceptable photo of the event will be uploaded to commons in the near future.
LegalSmeagolian (
talk)
01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
CNN used the image as the main one in a gallery article
[6]. New York Post included the image in a series of them taken by AP, highlighted in the article
[7].
Strong Keep this is a historic image. Please, quit with the "what ifs", we're not just trying to illustrate the article with random photos that happen to maybe be taken, maybe be uploaded feely, maybe exist, probably not be as good as this. This has merit in the sense of being a sort of iconic photo. see Personisinsterest and their argument for it. it's unique.
BarntToust (
talk)
01:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Your citations to various news sources reporting on the photo's significance would only justify its use on an article about the photo itself. Under Wikipedia's non-free use policy, this copyrighted image cannot be used simply to illustrate the broader event.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep while only hours after the incident, RS have already described the photo as -at least- very important. Hard to imagine the photo not making headlines globally tomorrow, too.
Juxlos (
talk)
01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hard to imagine the photo not making headlines globally tomorrow, too - that's more of a reason to delete. Commercial value of a current image. Can't claim fair use.
Kingsif (
talk)
01:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that, contrariwise, some guy shooting the President of the United States is an exceptionally notable phenomenon that does not in fact happen very often. I mean, I don't know, maybe in 2027 they will start doing it every ten days, and that'll be the new political tradition, but for the last few hundred years this has not been the general practice. jp×
g🗯️01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Noting that the article now says: An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards. Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history". Another image, as reported by Axios, taken by Anna Moneymaker, was spread by his prominent political allies as a rallying symbol."jp×
g🗯️02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This actually proves others' points relating to fair use, that there are other photos out there, and thus this individual photo cannot meet NFCC as a unique photo that we must use.
Natg 19 (
talk)
07:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete A lot of the comments here point out that this is a historically important image. While I don't disagree that it's important, that doesn't mean it satisfies NFCC. However, I don't agree that it's historically significant in such a way that this specific non-free photo must be the true one and only photo we use. As other editors have noted, there are many different photos of the incident (taken at different angles, photographers, etc). The incident is extremely recent, and considering how many attendees there were, it's not implausible to think that a free equivalent may exist. Just because it hasn't turned up ~4 hours(!) after it could have been taken does not mean it doesn't exist outright (NFCC 1).
WhoAteMyButter (
🌷talk│
🌻contribs)
01:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: the image is iconic for sure, but it is not compliant with the fair use. Read the banner: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts" --
RicoRico (
talk)
01:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - This image has significant commercial value and is not strictly necessary to understand anything discussed in the article, thus it fails to meet fair use rationale. Whether or not it is "historic" is irrelevant.
Nosferattus (
talk)
01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Where? I'm not seeing it. (If it's the one-liner in
Evan Vucci's article, that wouldn't be sufficient, even if we were talking about putting the image there instead.) —
Cryptic01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I only support temporary use of the photo until a copyright-free version of it are released or uploaded, then change the image.
Mhatopzz (
talk)
01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep at least until some other photo emerges that is (1) closer in time to the moment of shooting, (2) generally representative of the situation, and (3) high enough resolution to be of value to the viewer. Please let me know if someone knows of a better photo based on these criteria.
Speedy delete, copyright image that is infringing on photographer's possible opportunities and simple illustrating the article, not being used in an acceptable context.
🌸wasianpower🌸 (
talk •
contribs)
02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete It's unclear on the source of the image and it's currentely being used for political uses on twitter, i feel it should be an image right before shots were fired to keep it consistent with other presidential assasination articles and it provides a clearer view
NoKNoC (
talk)
02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strongest keep possible. This is objectively the most notable picture of this event. When people see this, this is the image people think of. If this image gets deleted, it would be a horrible disservice to Wikipedia.
Skirjamak (
talk)
03:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as per wasianpower and especially NATG 19 , doesn't add to the article and not historic at all. Maybe a reeval soon?
Delete - per reasons listed above. Just because a photo is notable does not mean we can undermine Wikipedia's adherence to copyright law. It also does nothing to help the reader understand the article better.
The diagram in this article showing where the shooter was located is a perfect example of a useful image, albeit not copyrighted.
Ayyydoc (
talk)
03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. This is the photo that summarizes the event. If you were to choose a photo to summarize the event, it would be this one. Photos are meant to aid the reader in understanding the article further, and this image very well does this.
Coulomb1 (
talk)
04:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - This image has been spread everywhere among news articles and social media, and already is and will be to a further extent one of great cultural and historical significance and recognizability. The image itself is subject to commentary as it singlehandedly improved Trump's image and perceived character.KyleSirTalksAlot (
talk)
04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Copyrighted image, the image is not the subject matter itself, enough said. If we can find a non-copyrighted image, then use that, if not, no image is necessary.
Real tlhingan (
talk)
05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Tentative keep. Supposing that some visual becomes emblematic of this event in the public consciousness, there should absolutely be a corresponding photo present in the article. Of that much I am certain.
It seems that the moment this photo captured has become emblematic of the event itself, being featured in numerous articles and publications. Only time can give us absolute certainty, but this is a fair bet to make. As such, if this moment becomes ingrained in our collective psyches as representative of the event, then a free, equivalent photo should absolutely be included in the article if one exists.
Should this copyrighted photo itself become the defining photo, then that absolutely justifies its usage. However, only after some time passes will we know with certainty. I withold final judgement until then, and I believe that that should hold true for the rest of us.
Until and unless some amount of time has passed and we can clearly see that no, this moment did not in fact come to be emblematic of the event, I think we must absolutely keep either it, or an equivalent, in the article. I think that this is a fair and balanced take on the matter.
Hanoi89computerlover (
talk)
07:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a historical photo that features Trump's iconic fist symbol after the attack. Similar to the photo of Reagan right before his assassination attempt
GodzillamanRor (
talk)
07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, at least as currently used. In the infobox, it is not being used to explain discussion of the photo; it is being used for its content rather than for its historicity. There is at least an arguable case of having a small version of it near the discussion of the photo itself, but the infobox is totally outside the flow of the article. All the argument that it illustrates the event well is but-I-like-it argumentation, which does not address the copyright concern. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This photo is going down in American history, it'll be talked about forever in political science classes and the photographer will probably receive a pulitzer for it..keep!
68.10.108.140 (
talk)
08:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"there is no similar free image"—It's too early to say that. There were reported to be 50,000 people attending.
WP:NFCC#1 states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." It's highly likely that there is another photo of the event which is free or could be made free by the owner.
Adabow (
talk)
01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Users claiming this is an historic image: the only way this is going to get kept is if somebody adds sourced commentary about the image itself to the article; it wouldn't matter if there were a thousand bolded keeps in a row here. Policy's as unambiguous as it gets on this point. —
Cryptic01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It has to be noted, this doesn't just mean commentary about "Trump was photo'd with his fist raised", it would have to be about this exact photo at this point in time, need RS's talking about Evan Vucci's Trump photo. Because it's still eminently possible there's a photographer out there who took one of the many similar images and could release it as Creative Commons.
Kingsif (
talk)
01:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, reluctantly. While it's probably the best image for this article, it has pretty clear commercial value. Also relevant is that the article isn't about the image itself.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think
WP:F7b applies here;
[13] is sourced commentary on the photo itself in the article ("An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards"). It's not being used to say much, but that seems to keep it out of speedy territory.
Dylnuge(
Talk •
Edits)01:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The quote in my comment is from our article (or at least what was in it when I made the comment). The article is changing quickly, but it seems relatively stable that the photo is commented on in the article itself and said commentary has been sourced. That strikes me as being ineligible for deletion under F7b, unless I'm missing something.
Dylnuge(
Talk •
Edits)02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's worth noting that the very first example they give (Rich McCormick tweet) is not this image but a similar one. That illustrates that it's the event that's significant, not this photo.
Adabow (
talk)
02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, the is there COMENTARY? argument is being satisfied, so that can no longer be realistically used as a definitive reason against, also, do wait for more commentary, surely more will come.
BarntToust (
talk)
02:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The cle notes that a different photo is being used by his allies. Thus, it may be the one that becomes iconic instead. It's simply too early to tell. -- i
Zanimum (
talk)
02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How is leaving out this image detrimental to the understanding of the article, @
Skyshifter. Answering that question is critical to this picture being used.
Nfitz (
talk)
02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Question: Are there any freely licensed photographs of this shooting? The photo of Trump with his fist up is somewhat iconic at the moment, and we could use non-free images if no free ones exist (we can't exactly make free ones exist if they don't, since this event already occurred). But I do wonder: is it truly necessary to use a photo like that here? Is it irreplaceable? —
Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No. Trump's supporters may not even know what a Creative Commons license is. It takes a special kind of not-normal, "nerd" (not used derogatorily, only factually) type of person to understand those things, and the general populous, like most of the attendees, probably doesn't understand those concepts. And only the few in the front rows could be able to take good pics. Don't count on it.
BarntToust (
talk)
02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Saying "Trump Supporters" instead of "the general public" can be construed as an attack on that group, especially when referring to things they allegedly do not know. Reads like "Those stupid DRUMPFKINS don't know bout the Creative Commons, those rural morons!". Perhaps you could consider better phrasing for your comment, such as "general public", "non-registered users", "non-Wikipedians" etc.
WP:Etiquette point 4.
86.180.196.148 (
talk)
03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The user goes on to say "the general populous, like most of the attendees, probably doesn't understand those concepts", and the phrasing used was "Trump's supporters", which is a subtle difference but is a factual descriptor of who was at the event.
RadioAlloy (
talk)
04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Very specious reasoning to declare that "Trump supporter" is a factual descriptor of all attendees. Can you provide a source that everyone in attendance was a Trump supporter, including all members of the media? Seems a big stretch to suggest that no Independents, Democrats or Undecideds were there. (EDIT: missing word)
86.180.196.148 (
talk)
04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm referring to people, not the photographers there in this case.. We needn't rely on potential for someone to decide, "well, I somehow managed to snap a pic in juuuuust the right moment here, let me release it from my ownership forever". It's a big thing, letting people at unrestricted use of a photo.
Yeah, I should've referred to the minority of people who are there not for the obvious reason to rally at a rally along with everyone for a catch-all term. It does sound bad when taken out of context. I do have to admit, I really don't trust that most people in a given situation, regardless of political affiliation or any other unrelated aspect of their persons, would be familiar with the process, or even understand commons as a system. It's not an insult to them, it's just not expecting them to be familiar with things that most are not. Or simply be aware of such a system. If that were so and everyone was familiar with Commons, we'd have a new infobox picture of Ryan Reynolds every time he and Blake Lively go out to eat. That is, if someone could get a good pic of him. It's an extended metaphor. It does seem bad when taken the wrong way, but I'd like to assure you that it's really not what I intend. I don't want to expect anything that has many possible roadblocks.
BarntToust (
talk)
04:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
WP:NFCCP#1. It is impossible to know if there is a non-free equivalent right now. Somebody else could have been close enough to take a picture of Trump, and it is possible that a person may release one under a compatible license in the near future. Also fails #2 because the photographer is certainly seeking to sell this picture. If reliable sources begin to write about this particular image, then it might be appropriate to use the image in the context of that description; per #8 it certainly shouldn't be in the infobox, divorced from that discussion.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
02:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - clearly violates image policy. Its way too soon to conclude that there isn't a free alternative. Surely, given this hasn't even been published in newspapers yet, it may be impacting the market value of the image. If used, surely it should be much lower resolution. I don't see how it helps the understanding of the event; there's no context to the blood. How is leaving out this image detrimental to the understanding of the article?
Nfitz (
talk)
02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Read the commentary, please. It's there, making the image relevant. Maybe put photo down there? Put commentary summary of it up there?
BarntToust (
talk)
02:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is some photographer's greatest work of their life, and not to be used without compensation. This is not a blurry album cover type of fair use. Abductive (
reasoning)02:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What? Okay, that is your opinion and not very relevant to its purpose, which has been defined above. Please keep such out of rationale for deletion.
BarntToust (
talk)
02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The non-free use rationale relies on the image being cropped and low-resolution, but Abductive is emphasizing that this image has a high commercial value that is infringed by Wikipedia's unlicensed usage. The "purpose" of using this image to illustrate the event is insufficient because the article successfully explains the event without relying on the photo. Even the newly added commentary on politicians posting raised fist images is an insufficient justification because some are posting photos other than Vucci's, so we do not need to infringe on this specific image to illustrate that commentary either.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This logic could be used to delete the Tank Man photo or the painting Guernica. Not saying that you do support that position, but following that chain of logic would lead to that sort of thing.
Bremps...03:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The difference is that those images are used on pages about the images themselves, so they are necessary for understanding the subject. This is not the case with the shooting.
Di (they-them) (
talk)
03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The New Yorker? It is a legitimate website. and, Really? Op-ed is not the word for writers' opinions. That's what commentary IS, Zaathras. Please understand this.
BarntToust (
talk)
03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean, commentary on stuff like that IS NOT what you are making it out to be, @
Zaathras. It's valued input on the significance of an image. I think you've got the New York Post and The New Yorker confused.
BarntToust (
talk)
03:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
^Norris, Mary (May 10, 2015).
"How I proofread my way to Philip Roth's heart". The Guardian.
Archived from the original on July 12, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2018. It has been more than 20 years since I became a page OK'er—a position that exists only at the New Yorker, where you query-proofread pieces and manage them, with the editor, the author, a fact-checker, and a second proofreader, until they go to press.
^"Mary Norris: The nit-picking glory of the New Yorker's comma queen".
TED. April 15, 2016.
Archived from the original on July 28, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2018. Copy editing for The New Yorker is like playing shortstop for a major league baseball team—every little movement gets picked over by the critics ...
E. B. White once wrote of commas in The New Yorker: 'They fall with the precision of knives outlining a body.'
User:BarntToust, I'm pretty sure Zaathras is replying to a user sharing an op-ed from NewsBreak, which is listed as an unreliable source at
WP:RS/P. They weren't replying to you about the New Yorker. Also, just a friendly suggestion, be mindful of when you may be leaving an excessive number of messages like this, as this could be perceived as
WP:BLUDGEONING. Vanilla Wizard 💙03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh okay, I didn't realize. Apologies for any ill feelings, @
Zaathras, but I simply wished to be proactive in this, and my points do stand. Also, I take the linked essay from @
Vanilla Wizard as an essay, not my binding duty, and I plan on (albeit respectfully) continuing my dialogue for however long this continues. I saw that Zaathra posted their words directly under my New Yorker source, and I apologize for going at it under a perhaps unfortunate and misunderstood context. I'll be more pragmatic in my edits from here on out. Thanks, Vanilla, for speaking with me. Have a good one all!
BarntToust (
talk)
03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not even the same image - most obviously, in the image in the The New Yorker piece, Trump's mouth is closed and the female agent's head is higher. (It's not even quite the same image as in the Politico article - we should be using an uncropped, though still reduced, version, if at all.) —
Cryptic03:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, Vucci's work is the best here, and the subject of legitimate critical commentary. So, a Vucci image could probably illustrate it best, in the illustration of such commentary and notability.
BarntToust (
talk)
03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is most certainly going to be the image that defines this particular event, for sure 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Claire 26 (
talk •
contribs)
Delete - there would only be a valid fair use rationale if there were an article on the image itself. But using a copyrighted image in the manner it was originally intended, that is to illustrate material about what the image is of and not to discuss the image itseld, when that copyrighted image is at the height of its commercial utility is a violation of our fair use criteria and the photographer's and/or agencies right to market and profit from that image. This is a blatant fail of NFCC #2. It may well be valid under US law for fair use, but our NFCC is considerably more strict than that.nableezy -
03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Commentary was necessary to keep the image from being
deleted immediately, but it's not by itself sufficient. Every non-free image has to meet every one of the
WP:non-free content criteria, and I've still got grave concerns about #2 and #8, and lesser ones about #1 and #10 (it's not at all clear, for example, that it was first published by Business Insider). —
Cryptic03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is an historic image that cannot be recreated since the event has passed. It provides significant aid to the reader by illustrating the nature of Trump's injuries and his reaction to them.
R. G. Checkers talk03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: from the template itself ({{Non-free historic image}}): Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). The actual use of this non-free image is in the article about the event itself, not in an article about the image itself. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BarntToust read the template content. The use should be on an article or a section about the image itself, not the event. It is what is written in the template. Again: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy).JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, so the usage of non-free rationale should apply for this one, if the template is not valid in the context of an image in an article.
BarntToust (
talk)
04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
From the boilerplate notice on the template: Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). As used in the article about the event itself, this is certainly a breach of this restricted use condition. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The market role can be mitigated by reduction of its size to the point in the uncanny valley where it's illustrative but not usable outside of the context.
BarntToust (
talk)
04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BarntToust the image is right again in the infobox, which clearly shows the purpose of illustrating the event: a breach of the conditions imposed by the template stating that it should only be used when it is the subject of a commentary, not a subject of the event. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)07:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I'd argue it counts as a historic image, considering how widespread it currently is and how many people associate this event with this image and Trump's reaction.
Justrz (
talk)
03:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Jontesta Your comment didn't involve a US President being shot or two people getting killed. Please keep the sass down to acceptable levels. (I think you're a masterclass at it though, notwithstanding this discussion.)
BarntToust (
talk)
04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:COPYVIO. Historic or not (of course, it certainly is), we have guidelines to adhere to right now as a community, and I think this fact should take precedence - there are fair use images already out that depict the situation just as completely and wholly as this.
DualDoppler (
talk)
04:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, on copyright grounds, per arguments by
DualDoppler. If the photographer releases the image under a Creative Commons license, then it can be kept and moved to Commons. -Mardus /
talk05:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Like him or not, this image is going to be iconic - numerous sources are already calling this a historic image and that is not going to change. It should be removed from the infobox, and then replaced with a free image when one becomes available, but
§ Effects on Trump's public image describes the image and its impact and can justifiably be used there. --
Lewis Hulbert (
talk)
05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I see no logical or encyclopedic reason to remove the image. This image is the one most commonly used by the media and by those in social media as the means by which the event is most recognizable and understood. It is not that much different from the one most commonly associated with the attempt on Ronald Reagan's life, and is currently used on Wikipedia for the article covering said attempt. Given its wide circulation throughout the media, there is little basis to state that this image shouldn't be used because of copyright. As has been said before, this is a historic image and that alone should merit its keeping on the article.
Vivaporius (
talk)
05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong keep - as we have other copyrighted historic images that aren’t in articles discussing the image. This will very likely become an iconic image. So I think it’ll qualify as fair use.
West Virginia WXeditor (
talk)
05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's already been circulating in some of the largest media outlets out there like CNN who say as much too. From CNN: 'The images will stand in history and enrich Trump’s mythology just as surely as the picture of his mug shot in at Atlanta jail and the footage of his return to the White House in 2020 after beating a serious Covid-19 infection.' —"
Attack on Trump reopens a chilling chapter in American politics"
Keep I don't think any organization really owns the copyright of the image, its historic, and is commonly used on the internet. Dose any organization own the copyright to the image? if so which one.
Zyxrq (
talk)
05:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, since this is already being shown on multiple news websites including CNN, and is being posted everywhere online. It's the most recognizable image there can be of this event.
LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the East (
talk |
worse talk)
05:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. with respect and kudos to the photographer, the photo appears to show Trump in what could easily be seen as an ostentatiously strong light, and used alone, it encompasses the events of the day very narrowly. Additionally, whether or not we have license under Wikipedia rules to use the photo in the way we are currently displaying it on the page doesn't quite seem concrete.
Keep. The media is calling this specific image"one of the most iconic photos in U.S. history". It therefore cannot be replaced (NFCC#1) and is a significant aspect of this event which we would miss if we didn't include (NFCC#8). I note also that the article already contains discussion of the image, which would be significantly diminished without the image's presence.
Endwise (
talk)
06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm a pretty strong supporter of property rights and I am not persuaded by those on the other side of this discussion that this image meets the legal criteria for an exception to copyright protection. There are quite a few very dramatic images of yesterday's events. I am fairly sure we can find one or two that will pass legal muster and do justice to the article. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
06:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Very obviously a history-defining photo that falls under
WP:FAIRUSE, per above; case closed (Comment/Abstain proviso: I support an explicitly free-use alternative if available, but I doubt we'll see one for some time ipso facto).--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk)07:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Image is of particular note. Besides that, we don't really have a free use image to replace it, other than those of poor quality. Keep this for now and see what happens with the licensing of the image, we have a commentary on the image located within the article anyway.
Fantastic Mr. Fox (
talk)
07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep, at least until another good image can be found. I've participated in a decent number of FFDs and here's my opinion. This image is definitely historic given its importance and the degree of coverage it's getting. (It wouldn't surprise me if it gets its own article after the dust settles.) I'm quite sure it's an acceptable historic image, because it's the subject of
significant commentary. The only thing I'm worried about is whether this meets NFCC 2, respect for commercial usage. After all, we're using it to report the news--it's mostly not the subject of commentary.
The Quirky Kitty (
talk)
07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete on copyright grounds as articulated by many others. If the photographer releases the image under a Creative Commons license, then it can be kept and moved to Commons.
Craig Andrew1 (
talk)
07:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This line of inquiry is a dead-end, AP will never freely license this. However, the image is historic enough that it's fair-use, to the point that there is significant discussion about this particular image. There is a significant loss if this image is deleted. I'm voting Keep.
Bremps...08:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete All the keep !votes that don't say how it meets NFCC are not worth much. It is too early to say whether it meets NFCCP 1, while 5 and 8 are borderline at best and it definately fails 2.
Aircorn(talk)08:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, per u:HandIsNotNookls and u:JPxG (Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history"). No chance of finding a free equivalent (NFCC #1). Low-res version would not harm the author's commercial opportunities (NFCC #2). The current use is minimal (NFCC #3).
Alaexis¿question?08:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. There is one problem I notice within the opposition here. Some falsely assume that this image is propaganda and hence violates NPOV. This is easily debunked that Associated Press, the last news website to ever upload Trump 'propaganda', was the uploader of the image. Hence it is not propaganda, which as a pejorative can't be used in encyclopedic discussions, but a remarkable image overused amid a fierce political season. I would argue that 'propaganda' isn't per se unencyclopedic— if we have a stunning portrait of Adolf Hitler, that's not propaganda, that's just a perfect photo to depict him. I notice that the image has an entire critical analysis section at the bottom of Aftermath, which seems to legitimize the presence of this picture. I would suggest moving the image to that part of the art. instead, so that its significance is more obvious. GeraldWL08:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Immediate Delete The image is a blatant violation of copyright, and its continues use opens up the Wikimedia Foundation to legal liabilities. It does not meet the criteria for fair use. Anyone arguing that it is an iconic image should create a new article specifically about this image.
Hallucegenia (
talk)
08:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Specifically the claim for fair use fails condition
WP:F7 "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and may be deleted immediately.Hallucegenia (
talk)
09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, given the significant coverage of the photograph, it's entirely possible that this image should get its own page, and certainly a mention on the photographer's page. Some users seem to be confusing the question of whether we should keep this image on the
Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page, and whether we should delete the image altogether. Just like many copyrighted images, there's a clear fair use case for this. Whether or not we should use the image on the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page is a different question entirely (I would personally still lean towards, 'yes, it should be used on that page') but that's its own discussion.
Joe (
talk)
08:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, without future replacement by a free image. Historical photo, importance being noted by many reliable sources, applies for fair use, and is the most representative picture of the event. So what's the problem?
SuperΨDro09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{
subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===July 14===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either
free content or
non-free content usage concerns.
Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the
non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to
deletion review.
What not to list here
For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is
uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{
subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the
speedy deletion templates. See the
criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without
rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{
db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
{{
now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use
speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a
VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{
subst:npd}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under
criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under
criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the
Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for
speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Instructions for listing files for discussion
Use
Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
Follow this edit link and list the file using {{
subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}}~~~~
Leave the subject heading blank.
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{
subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use
this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{
Ffd|log=2024 July 14}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{
subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}
Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
For multiple images by the same user, use {{
subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}}~~~~ (can handle up to 26)
If the image is in use, also consider adding {{
FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2024 July 14}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the
threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a
freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is:
too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at
Media Copyright Questions.
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format * '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~ where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that
polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining
consensus is through
editing and discussion, notvoting. Although editors occasionally use
straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more
binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to
Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See
Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps
here.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by
AnomieBOT (
talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Strong Keep, this painting is the subject of its own page where the image is irreplaceable and illustrative (too many artwork nominations at once of major artists such as Matisse and Derain, please limit your noms, thanks).
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - There are some odd quirks that come from the "publication" rule, and I believe the nominator is correct to question these images. There are definitely instances where a work this old can still be copyrighted in the United States. It's not super common, but it can happen, mostly when it comes to works first published outside the U.S., and usually only in select American states that are under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit (you can read more
here). Unfortunately, because WikiMedia's HQ is in California, that means all US WikiMedia entities are also subject to the 9th circuit's ruling. So to prove that these works can stay, someone would need to find the first instances of their publication abroad and/or in the U.S. If you check the
Hirtle chart, I believe this work and the other Matisse paintings Lithoderm nominated would be categorized under "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations" in the first "Special Cases" example ("1 July 1909 through 1978"). I would note that these deletion requests may seem a bit overwrought, but the nominator is not incorrect to point out the issue. Les Héritiers Matisse (the legal managers of Matisse's estate) still claim copyright over basically everything Matisse made and they're represented by the Artists Rights Society on U.S. copyright issues, so they clearly care about their copyright. Obviously they're probably just making broad claims to preserve (read: profit off) as much intellectual property as they can and ward off would-be re-users of the artworks, but they could definitely be right about any number of the works. I agree that Wikipedia would be better off if these images were kept. But without proof, we can't know for sure that these would pass legal muster as public domain in the (entire) United States. They can always be re-uploaded as non-free fair use images if need be. -
19h00s (
talk)
22:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Adding this as a comment since the legal analysis seems rather complex, but at least we have some history on this one: Bought in 1910 by a German collector and then on public display for three decades, is what the SLAM page says.
Felix QW (
talk)
09:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The graphic design would most likely not meet the minimum requirements for copyright protection and would therefore likely be free in the United States. Maybe you need to consider the minimum copyright protection in its country of origin. If it is in the UK or Australia, you need to use the target {{PD-USOnly}} and do not move it to Wikicommons. If the country of origin is Canada, use the template {{PD-textlogo}} instead of the original fair use label and move it to Wikicommons.
Fumikas Sagisavas (
talk)
02:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Status quo, keep as non-free. This is a complex design and IMO the page flip in the corner is sufficiently creative to push it over US TOO. -
Fastily09:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This is also from Russian state museums, and was apparently purchased by the museum from a Russian collector in 1918 (
[1]).
Felix QW (
talk)
09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Commons' general opinion is
here; publication can generally be assumed shortly after painting. Certainly when things like this leave copyright in their home country, I envision no problem uploading to Commons.--
Prosfilaes (
talk)
21:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't necessarily agree with that, not for works of fine art anyway. Unlike commercial photographers, fine artists often create works and keep them for themselves for an indefinite period. Without any evidence either way, I don't believe that a work of fine art can be considered contemporarily published beyond significant doubt.
Felix QW (
talk)
07:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Acquired by the Phillips Collection, where it is still on display, in 1923
[2]. So if sale and exhibition are considered publication, then this should be counted published in 1923.
Felix QW (
talk)
07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"File:Flor Contemlacion" is essentially a cropped and enlarged version of "File:Flor Contemplacion after arrest.jpg" and two non-free files providing essentially the same encylopedic information to readers aren't need per
WP:NFCC#3a. The cropped version is currently being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of
Flor Contemplacion while the uncropped "after arrest" version is being used in
Flor Contemplacion#Background to arrest. The cropped file does appears to have been upload prior to the uncropped version, but the uncropped version does perhaps provide more context and is a true representation of the photo that was taken. For that reason, I think that the uncropped versoin is probably the one that should be kept except it source url doesn't appear to be working to allow for verification of
WP:NFCC#4. Regardless of which of the two is kept, both aren't needed per
WP:NFCCP. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
05:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep cropped version, discard other. The uncropped one is poor as an identification image which it is currently being used for.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
04:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Adding this as a comment since the legal analysis seems rather complex, but at least we have some history on this one: Bought in 1912 by a Russian collector and then on public display from 1918, according to
the Impressionist gallery.
Felix QW (
talk)
13:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Although converting the file's licensing to non-free is worth discussing, it's not a panacea given that the file is currently being used in six articles and on one user page. If converted to non-free, the file will need to be removed from the user page per
WP:NFCC#9 and
WP:UP#Non-free files. That leaves the non-free uses in the six articles to be assessed since it shouldn't be assumed that adding a rationale for each use autoatically means the use is policy compliant per
WP:JUSTONE. The use in
Goldfish (Matisse) seems OK per item 6 of
WP:NFC#UUI, but it could be pretty hard to justify the other non-free uses. The non-free uses in "
Fish", "
Fish in culture" and "
Goldfish" seem near impossible to justify and almost certainly would need to go. The use in "
Henri Matisse and goldfish" might be justifiable, but there are other reperesentative free examples of the same subject matter being used which might mean this particular file is not needed. The same could be said for the use in
Henri Matisse. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
21:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Convert to non-free For this one, it would be difficult to justify contemporary publication, as one of the MoMA curators wrote
[3]:
In fact, this is a painting that he didn’t exhibit until 1949, 35 years after it was made.
Unless it emerges that this exhibition happens to have been in the US and did not pass the required formalities, I do not think we can say that this painting is in the public domain in the US.
Felix QW (
talk)
07:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: As I posted in the FFD thread right above this one, converting the file's licensing to non-free is worth discussing, but it also means the each of the individual eight uses of the file would need to be assessed. Since three of these uses are not in the article namespace, they fail
WP:NFCC#9 and
WP:UP#Non-free files and the file will need to be removed from those pages. Of the remaining five uses (
Color field,
Museum of Modern Art, View of Notre-Dame,
List of works by Henri Matisse and
Henri Matisse), there doesn't seem any way to justify non-free use in "Color Field" given the broad scope of the subject matter and item #6 of
WP:NFC#UUI. The same applies to the use in "Museum of Modern Art" with the added problem of
WP:NFG. The use in the list articles has issues with item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, and
WP:NFLISTS and
WP:NFTABLES since non-free content is, in principle, pretty much never allowed to be used to illustrate individual entries of lists or tables. That leaves the non-free uses in "View of Notre Dame" and "Henri Matisee". Using an non-free image of a painting file for primary identifiction purposes in a stand-alone article about said painting is almost certainly policy compliant, but using the same image in an article about the artist who painted the painting runs into problems with item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, particularly since there are multiple free equivalent images being used in the article as representative examples of the artist's work and style. Simply posting things such as "convert to non-free" or "Please add a [non-]free use template to the article" isn't really helpful when the file being discussed is being used on multiple pages because not each of those particular uses is automatically non-free content use compliant
just because a non-free use rationale is added for them. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
10:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the detailed analysis,
Marchjuly! I was merely commenting on the copyright status and usually defer to the expertise of others regarding the eligibility for non-free use. I seemed to me that non-free use on its own article page is almost certainly fine and that therefore deletion is not a plausible outcome. However, I also concur that it will likely have to be removed from the other pages that it is used for, per your detailed rationale above.
Felix QW (
talk)
11:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Dubious copyright-related information. Author/creator was listed as
Vivienne Medrano, which is the creator of the show (
Hazbin Hotel). However, following
the fandom URL link provided by the uploader as the image source, the creator is “John write”, not Vivienne Medrano. Also, the description of the non-free image usage was “Promotional still of the character Alastor”, which seems odd, given it comes from Fandom and not the show nor the show creator. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Creator delete I'll freely admit this was a mistake on my part and I assumed it was a promotional still as per common for such subjects and not fan art. I do feel though the article in question needs a proper image, I may clean up a screenshot from the show for such purposes later.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
19:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Edit I've replaced the image per the above struck comment with a cleaned up screenshot, and adjusted the fair use rationale to reflect that as the source complete with a link to the video and a time stamp for additional verification. @
WeatherWriter: I trust this will suffice now?--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
04:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See
Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) Even if the photo is free, the painting itself may not be. Commons is pretty cavalier about this, but should we be?
grendel|
khan18:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep, a major 1904 Matisse painting which has its own article and thus is irreplaceable as a page illustration. Should we be? 1904!
Randy Kryn (
talk)
12:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure which part of that section was unclear, but if that's the meaning you took away it should be reworded. Are you looking at the second-to-last paragraph that's specifically about sound recordings? — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean the section quoting from another text: “publication occurred when … the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public...” (Nimmer, § 4.039(A) Internal citations removed.)Felix QW (
talk)
17:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The reason I remembered it was that it was pointed out to me in a very similar situation over at Commons, where I was the one claiming the copyright situation was unclear.
Felix QW (
talk)
17:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There has also been some response on the related Commons thread opened by the nominator
here. The general message seems to be "as long as the painting somehow left the artist, it's probably fine", although the details seem to be washy even to the more expert Commons commentators.
Felix QW (
talk)
09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - the copyright question on this is clear: absent evidence of publication, we have to treat this as unpublished. As such, it will enter the public domain in January 2025. "Publication" for a painting is typically synonymous with reproduction. If it's copied, if it appears in print, etc. Yes, that means most old paintings were not published. That doesn't mean they never enter the public domain, it just means that claims about public domain that assume publication are invalid. They enter the public domain (in the US and France, at least), 70 years after the death of the author. Not !voting delete because it sounds like someone's going to make an NFCC claim -- and that's a whole different question. — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. Also, MoMA claims copyright; it's unclear how valid that is.
grendel|
khan18:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep, seriously? This is one of Matisse's most famous works, it has its own page (as do most of the paintings you are nominating) and thus is irreplaceable as an illustration for that page.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
12:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. My understanding from reading
c:COM:Public art and copyrights in the US is that the definition of publication given at
Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication is that of the current law, in force from 1978 onwards. Prior to that, the concept of publication was much wider, and for instance included selling the original work as such. This renders the painting under discussion published in 1910, as it was sold upon completion to an art collector in Moscow.
Felix QW (
talk)
15:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. Also, the source link is invalid, so I'm not sure if the museum claims copyright, if that's valid.
grendel|
khan18:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relicense as non-free This seems to have been purchased by a museum from the painter in 1945, and I have been unable to find any exhibition record before that date. It does seem to be discussed sufficiently in its own article for non-free local use.
Felix QW (
talk)
20:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. This image is used on 11 articles, probably most can be templated for fair-use. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment According to the MoMA page linked in the nomination, this image was acquired from the artist in 1926 and sold to a collector in London. So if we follow the line that that sale of the original constitutes publication prior to 1978, then this image has been published by 1926.
Felix QW (
talk)
12:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then.
grendel|
khan23:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment All I have been able to find out so far was it currently seems to be located in the chamber of deputies of the Province of Salta. Should it have been made for this purpose, it may be considered to have been published in 1918.
Felix QW (
talk)
12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not exactly sure that it is clear that this is actually licensed under the BSD license? If it is under the BSD license, I would expect it to be under the two-clause BSD license, because that is the license the software uses. But I am not finding anywhere on the website where it indicates the logo itself is licensed under any of the BSD licenses. Therefore, I support relicensing as non-free for use in
FreeBSD. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/they)
00:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Re-license as non-free – Reading the Terms there, the logo is clearly non-free. Implicitly, a BSD license does not apply to the logo, and the Term doesn't mention a Creative Commons license. Rather the Terms' agreements imply that the Foundation still retains its copyright of the logo and wouldn't waive most of its rights just to allow anyone to use the logo freely or loosely. On the other hand, I can't help wonder whether the Foundation would still allow the use of the logo in this project (especially for just one article).
George Ho (
talk)
04:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This image was removed from the article in favour of
this file from Commons. However, I find the copyright tagging on that file dubious and nominated it for deletion at Commons. So maybe if we delete the local file here we can undelete should the Commons file be deleted there.
Felix QW (
talk)
20:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree with above. Using only the top image is misrepresenting the article topic. Just do something with them side by side like the two examples above.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
04:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This non-free image is being used in two articles with the same rationale that it is for primary visual identification. It is indeed being used for that purpose for
Kuantan, and I recommend we keep that usage. However, its use in
List of cities in Malaysia is entirely decorative and is certainly not identifying the topic of the article which is the list and recommend to remove the usage in the list as it fails
WP:NFCC#8.
Whpq (
talk)
03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Stated rationale says it’s used to illustrate subject of biographical article, when in fact the article is about an event and not a person. ꧁Zanahary꧂05:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The event sort of doubles as a biography, involving the victim's life and how it ended, etc. An image is as necessary to understand the event as it is for any biography of a person. Nearly all GA and FA class articles of this type use this same rationale - while OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean anything, FA articles using it generally is a sign it is accepted practice. See
Murder of Joanna Yeates,
Murder of Dwayne Jones,
Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, all FA class event based articles with fair use victim images.
In fact, I can't find a single FA class article of this type that doesn't have an image of the victim. This is standard practice. To remove images would effect hundreds of pages on every single article of this type and requires much wider discussion.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
04:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A notable murder case almost always involves why a person was murdered and their background. It is necessary for the same reasons to identify the murder victim as a biography article, as they are the key focus of the event, therefore fulfilling the same reasons a dead person's biography allows a non free image of them - for identification. Your interpretation is overly literal.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
03:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe the Vancouver logo is very simple in design. Although Canada's copyright law is inherited from the British Empire, Canadian judicial precedents are very different from those in the UK or Australia. The minimum copyright protection in Canada is probably greater than that in the United States, and Vancouver's city logo is unlikely to meet the minimum copyright protection in the United States.
Please replace the original fair use tag with {{PD-textlogo}} and move it to wikicommons.
Merely identifies Britney Spears and two other females in waitress outfits. Doesn't
contextually signify the whole song or the whole music video or text description that can be already understood without this image. Omission may not impact such understanding.
George Ho (
talk)
09:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but that's the back cover of the 1982 (not 1976) UK release. The front cover contains a photo of the Beatles. Furthermore, the back cover contains one of EMI logos, which apparently looks complex enough for copyright, especially upon close-up (
45cat,
ebay).
Although this box set contains multiple non-free cover arts (and thus cannot be moved to Commons), someone could take a photo of the box set and release the photo under a free license, per
WP:FREER.
JohnCWiesenthal (
talk)
17:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a
G12 that was challenged by the uploader after I initially deleted the image. The image is from the web site of the United States National Weather Service. (
source page). US Federal works are automatically public domain. But in this case, the image is not the work of the agency or one of its employees. It is provided by a person named Jeff Sisson as acknowledged in the image gallery credits. The basis for this image being public domain is
this disclaimer page which states that anybody donating photos agrees to release it as public domain. The oddity about the page is that it for the Sioux Falls, SD weather forecast office as can be seen on the page, the navigation breadcrumb trail, and URL. There is no corresponding disclaimer for the La Crosse, WI office which is where this image is from. The language of the disclaimer covers the National Weather Service with no reference to a specific office. Discussion about the status of this image is needed. If kept, the licensing will need to be corrected as this is not PD as a UD government work, but is PD because the author (Jeff Sisson) has made it so.
Whpq (
talk)
18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep – The Commons has had this debate several times before, hence why
Template:PD-NWS exists separately from
Template:PD-USGov-NOAA (
NOAA is the parent organization of NWS). On the PD-NWS template, there is actually a perfect example of why NWS images are PD.
File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg (currently in use on
Tornadoes of 2022) was
nominated for deletion on the Commons on grounds it wasn't PD as it wasn't taken by an NWS employee. To note, the image has a large watermark over it, but not a copyright symbol. That deletion discussion determined it was indeed public domain. In fact, I was actually the editor who question it in the first place only because of the watermark. The statement holds up. If I spent more time digging, I could probably find several more deletion discussions regarding the PD-NWS template, but thousands of images exist under it, because NWS allows users who aren't federal employees to submit images into the public domain. Either way, this is an unwatermarked image on weather.gov, so there is no question that it is public domain. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
WeatherWriter: Thanks for the information. I was not aware of this. My encounters with other federal agency web sites do not have contributor photos released as PD. This nomination is withdrawn as the main concern was the applicability of the PD license. --
Whpq (
talk)
19:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was the person who originally tagged this as F9, based on the contributor's (wrong) choice of copyright tag. And like
Whpq, I did not know that the NWS has this condition for external contributions.
That said, we do not yet know the terms under which Jeff Sissoon contributed his photos. (Archive.org seems temporarily down as I'm typing this.) From one of the Commons cases linked by
User:WeatherWriter above, I can see that the earliest archive date of that policy is 2015.
If we can establish that Sisoon contributed his photos after 13 May 2009, then we should keep
Because we cannot prove either when these terms came into force, nor when Sisson made his contribution or under what terms, we cannot just assume that this condition has always existed, and we must delete
Update: I just realised that the PD-NWS template at Commons documents this disclaimer existing as early as 13 May 2009
[4] -- so that's our new baseline. --
Rlandmann (
talk)
21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Update #2: archive.org is back, so here are the dates we can be certain of:
The Commons' own PD-NWS template is a secondary source that mentions this arrangement existing since at least 13 May 2009
according to its history
Jeff Sisson's contribution to the NWS was made sometime before 19 September 2015
earliest capture on archive.org, but crucially to this discussion, we do not know when. Other submissions on the same page date back as early as 2006, and Sisson's contribution is nestled amongst ones made in 2008, but unfortunately, the submissions aren't in chronological order either.
Unless we can establish (a) when NWS received Sisson's contributions and (b) what terms existed at that time, we cannot prove that this is a free image. --
Rlandmann (
talk)
02:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As a note, older photographs were not taken by the NWS until they started their website. That has been the disclaimer for their website forever, meaning all photos are PD unless noted. This debate really came because it was uploaded to Wikipedia and not the Commons. This is a Commons debate which has already been solved. So my !vote remains the same as this is a PD image and I would have uploaded to the Commons myself and I will probably export it or upload it later this evening to the Commons as a public domain image. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I hear what you're saying, but as far as I've been able to tell, we don't have any actual evidence for this disclaimer being part of the NWS website "forever", only since 13 May 2009. Do you have anything that proves otherwise?
The Commons tag makes perfect sense for any images that were uploaded after that date, but before that date, we can't know what terms it was uploaded under. And in this case, we simply don't know when Sisson uploaded his photo.--
Rlandmann (
talk)
02:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep With all due respect, I don't see how a snippet of a song can't tell readers more about the song. It's the thing itself. There's nothing more informative.
Bremps...07:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NFCC#1, as it is replaceable with a free image. Firstly,
File:Ariane 6 PPH cutaway-en.svg provides more encyclopedic information that this image, and secondly a freely licenced image could be found, as someone with correct clearance could licence a free photograph, or someone like
NASA could licence one appropriately for Wikipedia (under a government free licence). Also, this is not a "historic image" like the non free template claims. Also, this is lacking a valid
non-free use rationale, and unless one is added that demonstrates that it meets all of the
WP:NFCC, then this image cannot be used.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
10:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete I was the editor who removed the prod tag from the file because at the time it was the only representation of the cover version. Now that a more acceptable file has been made, that would should be used instead since the article has a sourced section with critical commentary about this cover version that was the most successful charting version of the song.
Aspects (
talk)
04:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This cover art is of a four-track French EP release (
45cat,
discogs). No two-track single releases use this cover art. Furthermore, the EP itself hasn't been yet proven notable.
George Ho (
talk)
11:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Unfortunately I don't think that this file can be justified as fair use. The photo is not strictly necessary to understand the subject of the article, and the photo itself is never discussed in the article. If the article were about the photograph itself it would be justifiable, but this is not the case.
Di (they-them) (
talk)
00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep the image very clearly articulates information clear than any word can. It also adequately summarizes the events of the shooting, with the bloody trump being whisked away. The subject of the image, the assassination attempt against trump, is the entire subject of the article.
Scu ba (
talk)
00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Showing Evan Vucci's copyrighted image in a cropped and low-resolution format does not satisfy
WP:NFCC#2 because the original image's market role is replaced by any unlicensed edit that still retains the photographer's unique capture of Trump's bloodied face in front of the US flag.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
AP is not a government organization. They are a not-for-profit organization. That means that the public domain exemption does not apply. --
Super Goku V (
talk)
07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
LuxembourgLover: There's a fundamental difference in the situations. Those "raising the flag" pages are about the photographs in question, so the photographs are necessary to better understand the article. There is no page about "Evan Vucci's photograph of Donald Trump".
Di (they-them) (
talk)
00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a wholly fanciful argument that does not jibe with
WP:NFCC. It is beyond laughable to think you can declare something "historical" mere hours after the fact.
Zaathras (
talk)
00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's definitely a historical image. This was the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. You might not consider it history because it happened a couple of hours ago, but everything was "mere hours" ago at some point.
USA1855 (
talk)
01:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. There have been
over 20 in 40 years. Hyperbole is not a reason to keep a non-free image.
Zaathras (
talk)
01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
His argument is indeed flawed in its wording, but, @
Zaathras , I do want to hear when (at least) two people were killed and when something actually hit a President. Please do cite when something other than a plot happened. Not an actual attempt. Something actually serious, like this.
BarntToust (
talk)
01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well-justified in its description (no low-resolution free-use images of this event exist) and the image captures the unparalleled significance of the moment very fittingly for the article. The image from the
murder of Lee Harvey Oswald comes to mind as a good analogy -- alternatives may exist, but the historic angle and context of that one image is undeniable.
HandIsNotNookls (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This image is more historically important than many of the other images I see listed with "Non-free historic image". In addition, the spontaneous reaction was not staged, so the photographer has very little copyright interest in the photograph.
TE(æ)A,ea. (
talk)
00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
First, the existence of other copyright violations is not an argument for further wrongdoing. It is an impetus to propose deletion of those rule-breakers. Second, photographers are not denied a copyright interest in their creations simply because the results were spontaneous.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
BluePenguin18 🐧: No, I think those are justified; it is just that this is more justified than those cases. I presume you haven't read the law? Photography, at its course, is mechanical, not creative; so, for a photograph to be copyrighted, some creative work—known as "authorship"—must occur before the photograph is taken. The main appeal of this photograph—most of what strikes the viewer as copyrightable—owes its origin not to the photographer's choices of angle, camera settings, &c., but to the staging of the rally podium and Trump's action in raising his fist.
TE(æ)A,ea. (
talk)
01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speaking as a law student, this is incorrect. This image qualifies for copyright protection because it is fixed to the medium of a photograph, authored by the human Evan Vucci, is in a copyrightable subject matter of a pictoral work, and showcases originality in its presentation (
US Copyright Office). Accepting that the image is under copyright, US law makes no free use exception on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
BluePenguin18 🐧: You have misunderstood my statement. You have also not explained the basis of your belief that the work has copyrightable subject matter, or the extent of that protection. That is what my response was addressing. As to that hyper-link,
I have already read it, and have read more particularly court cases which address the topic. My comment on "appeal" was directed to originality—much of what could be identified as "original" in the image, its "appeal," does not originate in the photographer's creative processes and cannot thereby be attributed to him through the copyright law.~
TE(æ)A,ea. (
talk)
02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That US Copyright Office document links to a glossary noting that Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) recognized that photographs qualify as a copyrightable subject matter. If you are truly aware of any court cases that limit copyright protection on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator, please cite them.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the image seems to have potential for commercial use & can easily be replaced by a CC image (once one is taken/found). The photograph may be historically relevant, but fair use on Wikipedia seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Jan-Janko (
talk)
00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is the most notable image and is shown throughout the media (or different variations of Trump raising his fist) so it is most informative to readers and the most relevant image to display in the infobox.
Bill Williams00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete One does not need to see an image like this (that is now being used to show "he's a tough guy" on social media) to understand the subject matter. Non-free media of various kinds can be used instead, or something may be released down the road
Zaathras (
talk)
00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I do have to ask, in the context of a shooting, is a strong-looking image bad or unnecessary? No. Also, I'm sure analysis of the image probably will happen, but "they are using it" isn't a good argument imo.
BarntToust (
talk)
01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is essentially the image of the event. If I were asked to choose an image to summarize the event, I'd choose this. It doesn't matter what some people on social media are using it for. This image certainly does help in understanding the event. It shows Trump's shot ear and him being escorted.
Coulomb1 (
talk)
04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: It's an amazing photograph, artistically speaking (and kudos to the photographer), but it's still Evan Vucci's copyrighted image. As such, unless we can get a better, non-copyrighted image, I don't think we can keep it, per BluePenguin18 and Di. Better to not have a photograph. —
Javert2113 (
Siarad.|
¤)00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails #1 in that a free image depicting the event could easily be made available at any point soon. Fails #2 in that it's clearly a popular image of a current event and the wire photographer will be selling it to newspapers around the world for Sunday/Monday papers. Fails #5 and #8 in not adding to encyclopedic understanding of the event as of present. Also fails #8 if the premise is that it's an historic image: the event happened like two hours ago and we can't be certain what happened. Significance cannot possibly have been established.
Kingsif (
talk)
00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per arguments above - it's too soon to be sure that free media will not be available, and I don't think the photo is strictly necessary to significantly increase understanding about the topic. As such, fair use shouldn't be claimed.
Gazamp (
talk)
00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This seems to me like a unique photo of a historic event, which happened over the course of a couple minutes, and of which it is now permanently possible to find a replacement photo. Like, how are we supposed to go take a freely licensed replacement photo of an assassination attempt, send a second assassin? I have looked over
WP:NFCC and I don't really see anything to indicate this is an unacceptable piccy. If there really is something in there specifically proscribing this, let me know and I will change to delete, but for now I am in favor of keeping it. jp×
g🗯️00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Noting that the article now says: An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards. Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history". Another image, as reported by Axios, taken by Anna Moneymaker, was spread by his prominent political allies as a rallying symbol."
For which image? The Gucci one or the Moneymaker one?
The Daily Beast has a different angle captured by Brendan McDermid. I think it's far too early to tell which, if any, of these are historic enough to meet
WP:NFC#CS.
Adabow (
talk)
02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There were tens of thousands of people at the rally, so it is possible, even likely, that a free equivalent exists or could be created (fails NFCC 1). A very recent event and us hosting this doesn't respect the commercial value of the image (fails NFCC 2). I also don't think it meets NFCC 8 (contextual significance) in the way that it's currently being used (infobox, describing Secret Service escorting Trump away).
Adabow (
talk)
00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete copyrighted image at event with many attendees, likely another acceptable photo of the event will be uploaded to commons in the near future.
LegalSmeagolian (
talk)
01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
CNN used the image as the main one in a gallery article
[6]. New York Post included the image in a series of them taken by AP, highlighted in the article
[7].
Strong Keep this is a historic image. Please, quit with the "what ifs", we're not just trying to illustrate the article with random photos that happen to maybe be taken, maybe be uploaded feely, maybe exist, probably not be as good as this. This has merit in the sense of being a sort of iconic photo. see Personisinsterest and their argument for it. it's unique.
BarntToust (
talk)
01:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Your citations to various news sources reporting on the photo's significance would only justify its use on an article about the photo itself. Under Wikipedia's non-free use policy, this copyrighted image cannot be used simply to illustrate the broader event.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep while only hours after the incident, RS have already described the photo as -at least- very important. Hard to imagine the photo not making headlines globally tomorrow, too.
Juxlos (
talk)
01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hard to imagine the photo not making headlines globally tomorrow, too - that's more of a reason to delete. Commercial value of a current image. Can't claim fair use.
Kingsif (
talk)
01:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that, contrariwise, some guy shooting the President of the United States is an exceptionally notable phenomenon that does not in fact happen very often. I mean, I don't know, maybe in 2027 they will start doing it every ten days, and that'll be the new political tradition, but for the last few hundred years this has not been the general practice. jp×
g🗯️01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Noting that the article now says: An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards. Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history". Another image, as reported by Axios, taken by Anna Moneymaker, was spread by his prominent political allies as a rallying symbol."jp×
g🗯️02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This actually proves others' points relating to fair use, that there are other photos out there, and thus this individual photo cannot meet NFCC as a unique photo that we must use.
Natg 19 (
talk)
07:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete A lot of the comments here point out that this is a historically important image. While I don't disagree that it's important, that doesn't mean it satisfies NFCC. However, I don't agree that it's historically significant in such a way that this specific non-free photo must be the true one and only photo we use. As other editors have noted, there are many different photos of the incident (taken at different angles, photographers, etc). The incident is extremely recent, and considering how many attendees there were, it's not implausible to think that a free equivalent may exist. Just because it hasn't turned up ~4 hours(!) after it could have been taken does not mean it doesn't exist outright (NFCC 1).
WhoAteMyButter (
🌷talk│
🌻contribs)
01:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: the image is iconic for sure, but it is not compliant with the fair use. Read the banner: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts" --
RicoRico (
talk)
01:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - This image has significant commercial value and is not strictly necessary to understand anything discussed in the article, thus it fails to meet fair use rationale. Whether or not it is "historic" is irrelevant.
Nosferattus (
talk)
01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Where? I'm not seeing it. (If it's the one-liner in
Evan Vucci's article, that wouldn't be sufficient, even if we were talking about putting the image there instead.) —
Cryptic01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I only support temporary use of the photo until a copyright-free version of it are released or uploaded, then change the image.
Mhatopzz (
talk)
01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep at least until some other photo emerges that is (1) closer in time to the moment of shooting, (2) generally representative of the situation, and (3) high enough resolution to be of value to the viewer. Please let me know if someone knows of a better photo based on these criteria.
Speedy delete, copyright image that is infringing on photographer's possible opportunities and simple illustrating the article, not being used in an acceptable context.
🌸wasianpower🌸 (
talk •
contribs)
02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete It's unclear on the source of the image and it's currentely being used for political uses on twitter, i feel it should be an image right before shots were fired to keep it consistent with other presidential assasination articles and it provides a clearer view
NoKNoC (
talk)
02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strongest keep possible. This is objectively the most notable picture of this event. When people see this, this is the image people think of. If this image gets deleted, it would be a horrible disservice to Wikipedia.
Skirjamak (
talk)
03:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as per wasianpower and especially NATG 19 , doesn't add to the article and not historic at all. Maybe a reeval soon?
Delete - per reasons listed above. Just because a photo is notable does not mean we can undermine Wikipedia's adherence to copyright law. It also does nothing to help the reader understand the article better.
The diagram in this article showing where the shooter was located is a perfect example of a useful image, albeit not copyrighted.
Ayyydoc (
talk)
03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. This is the photo that summarizes the event. If you were to choose a photo to summarize the event, it would be this one. Photos are meant to aid the reader in understanding the article further, and this image very well does this.
Coulomb1 (
talk)
04:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - This image has been spread everywhere among news articles and social media, and already is and will be to a further extent one of great cultural and historical significance and recognizability. The image itself is subject to commentary as it singlehandedly improved Trump's image and perceived character.KyleSirTalksAlot (
talk)
04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Copyrighted image, the image is not the subject matter itself, enough said. If we can find a non-copyrighted image, then use that, if not, no image is necessary.
Real tlhingan (
talk)
05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Tentative keep. Supposing that some visual becomes emblematic of this event in the public consciousness, there should absolutely be a corresponding photo present in the article. Of that much I am certain.
It seems that the moment this photo captured has become emblematic of the event itself, being featured in numerous articles and publications. Only time can give us absolute certainty, but this is a fair bet to make. As such, if this moment becomes ingrained in our collective psyches as representative of the event, then a free, equivalent photo should absolutely be included in the article if one exists.
Should this copyrighted photo itself become the defining photo, then that absolutely justifies its usage. However, only after some time passes will we know with certainty. I withold final judgement until then, and I believe that that should hold true for the rest of us.
Until and unless some amount of time has passed and we can clearly see that no, this moment did not in fact come to be emblematic of the event, I think we must absolutely keep either it, or an equivalent, in the article. I think that this is a fair and balanced take on the matter.
Hanoi89computerlover (
talk)
07:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a historical photo that features Trump's iconic fist symbol after the attack. Similar to the photo of Reagan right before his assassination attempt
GodzillamanRor (
talk)
07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, at least as currently used. In the infobox, it is not being used to explain discussion of the photo; it is being used for its content rather than for its historicity. There is at least an arguable case of having a small version of it near the discussion of the photo itself, but the infobox is totally outside the flow of the article. All the argument that it illustrates the event well is but-I-like-it argumentation, which does not address the copyright concern. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This photo is going down in American history, it'll be talked about forever in political science classes and the photographer will probably receive a pulitzer for it..keep!
68.10.108.140 (
talk)
08:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"there is no similar free image"—It's too early to say that. There were reported to be 50,000 people attending.
WP:NFCC#1 states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." It's highly likely that there is another photo of the event which is free or could be made free by the owner.
Adabow (
talk)
01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Users claiming this is an historic image: the only way this is going to get kept is if somebody adds sourced commentary about the image itself to the article; it wouldn't matter if there were a thousand bolded keeps in a row here. Policy's as unambiguous as it gets on this point. —
Cryptic01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It has to be noted, this doesn't just mean commentary about "Trump was photo'd with his fist raised", it would have to be about this exact photo at this point in time, need RS's talking about Evan Vucci's Trump photo. Because it's still eminently possible there's a photographer out there who took one of the many similar images and could release it as Creative Commons.
Kingsif (
talk)
01:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, reluctantly. While it's probably the best image for this article, it has pretty clear commercial value. Also relevant is that the article isn't about the image itself.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think
WP:F7b applies here;
[13] is sourced commentary on the photo itself in the article ("An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards"). It's not being used to say much, but that seems to keep it out of speedy territory.
Dylnuge(
Talk •
Edits)01:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The quote in my comment is from our article (or at least what was in it when I made the comment). The article is changing quickly, but it seems relatively stable that the photo is commented on in the article itself and said commentary has been sourced. That strikes me as being ineligible for deletion under F7b, unless I'm missing something.
Dylnuge(
Talk •
Edits)02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's worth noting that the very first example they give (Rich McCormick tweet) is not this image but a similar one. That illustrates that it's the event that's significant, not this photo.
Adabow (
talk)
02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, the is there COMENTARY? argument is being satisfied, so that can no longer be realistically used as a definitive reason against, also, do wait for more commentary, surely more will come.
BarntToust (
talk)
02:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The cle notes that a different photo is being used by his allies. Thus, it may be the one that becomes iconic instead. It's simply too early to tell. -- i
Zanimum (
talk)
02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How is leaving out this image detrimental to the understanding of the article, @
Skyshifter. Answering that question is critical to this picture being used.
Nfitz (
talk)
02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Question: Are there any freely licensed photographs of this shooting? The photo of Trump with his fist up is somewhat iconic at the moment, and we could use non-free images if no free ones exist (we can't exactly make free ones exist if they don't, since this event already occurred). But I do wonder: is it truly necessary to use a photo like that here? Is it irreplaceable? —
Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No. Trump's supporters may not even know what a Creative Commons license is. It takes a special kind of not-normal, "nerd" (not used derogatorily, only factually) type of person to understand those things, and the general populous, like most of the attendees, probably doesn't understand those concepts. And only the few in the front rows could be able to take good pics. Don't count on it.
BarntToust (
talk)
02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Saying "Trump Supporters" instead of "the general public" can be construed as an attack on that group, especially when referring to things they allegedly do not know. Reads like "Those stupid DRUMPFKINS don't know bout the Creative Commons, those rural morons!". Perhaps you could consider better phrasing for your comment, such as "general public", "non-registered users", "non-Wikipedians" etc.
WP:Etiquette point 4.
86.180.196.148 (
talk)
03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The user goes on to say "the general populous, like most of the attendees, probably doesn't understand those concepts", and the phrasing used was "Trump's supporters", which is a subtle difference but is a factual descriptor of who was at the event.
RadioAlloy (
talk)
04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Very specious reasoning to declare that "Trump supporter" is a factual descriptor of all attendees. Can you provide a source that everyone in attendance was a Trump supporter, including all members of the media? Seems a big stretch to suggest that no Independents, Democrats or Undecideds were there. (EDIT: missing word)
86.180.196.148 (
talk)
04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm referring to people, not the photographers there in this case.. We needn't rely on potential for someone to decide, "well, I somehow managed to snap a pic in juuuuust the right moment here, let me release it from my ownership forever". It's a big thing, letting people at unrestricted use of a photo.
Yeah, I should've referred to the minority of people who are there not for the obvious reason to rally at a rally along with everyone for a catch-all term. It does sound bad when taken out of context. I do have to admit, I really don't trust that most people in a given situation, regardless of political affiliation or any other unrelated aspect of their persons, would be familiar with the process, or even understand commons as a system. It's not an insult to them, it's just not expecting them to be familiar with things that most are not. Or simply be aware of such a system. If that were so and everyone was familiar with Commons, we'd have a new infobox picture of Ryan Reynolds every time he and Blake Lively go out to eat. That is, if someone could get a good pic of him. It's an extended metaphor. It does seem bad when taken the wrong way, but I'd like to assure you that it's really not what I intend. I don't want to expect anything that has many possible roadblocks.
BarntToust (
talk)
04:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
WP:NFCCP#1. It is impossible to know if there is a non-free equivalent right now. Somebody else could have been close enough to take a picture of Trump, and it is possible that a person may release one under a compatible license in the near future. Also fails #2 because the photographer is certainly seeking to sell this picture. If reliable sources begin to write about this particular image, then it might be appropriate to use the image in the context of that description; per #8 it certainly shouldn't be in the infobox, divorced from that discussion.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
02:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - clearly violates image policy. Its way too soon to conclude that there isn't a free alternative. Surely, given this hasn't even been published in newspapers yet, it may be impacting the market value of the image. If used, surely it should be much lower resolution. I don't see how it helps the understanding of the event; there's no context to the blood. How is leaving out this image detrimental to the understanding of the article?
Nfitz (
talk)
02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Read the commentary, please. It's there, making the image relevant. Maybe put photo down there? Put commentary summary of it up there?
BarntToust (
talk)
02:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is some photographer's greatest work of their life, and not to be used without compensation. This is not a blurry album cover type of fair use. Abductive (
reasoning)02:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What? Okay, that is your opinion and not very relevant to its purpose, which has been defined above. Please keep such out of rationale for deletion.
BarntToust (
talk)
02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The non-free use rationale relies on the image being cropped and low-resolution, but Abductive is emphasizing that this image has a high commercial value that is infringed by Wikipedia's unlicensed usage. The "purpose" of using this image to illustrate the event is insufficient because the article successfully explains the event without relying on the photo. Even the newly added commentary on politicians posting raised fist images is an insufficient justification because some are posting photos other than Vucci's, so we do not need to infringe on this specific image to illustrate that commentary either.
BluePenguin18 🐧 (
💬 )
02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This logic could be used to delete the Tank Man photo or the painting Guernica. Not saying that you do support that position, but following that chain of logic would lead to that sort of thing.
Bremps...03:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The difference is that those images are used on pages about the images themselves, so they are necessary for understanding the subject. This is not the case with the shooting.
Di (they-them) (
talk)
03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The New Yorker? It is a legitimate website. and, Really? Op-ed is not the word for writers' opinions. That's what commentary IS, Zaathras. Please understand this.
BarntToust (
talk)
03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean, commentary on stuff like that IS NOT what you are making it out to be, @
Zaathras. It's valued input on the significance of an image. I think you've got the New York Post and The New Yorker confused.
BarntToust (
talk)
03:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
^Norris, Mary (May 10, 2015).
"How I proofread my way to Philip Roth's heart". The Guardian.
Archived from the original on July 12, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2018. It has been more than 20 years since I became a page OK'er—a position that exists only at the New Yorker, where you query-proofread pieces and manage them, with the editor, the author, a fact-checker, and a second proofreader, until they go to press.
^"Mary Norris: The nit-picking glory of the New Yorker's comma queen".
TED. April 15, 2016.
Archived from the original on July 28, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2018. Copy editing for The New Yorker is like playing shortstop for a major league baseball team—every little movement gets picked over by the critics ...
E. B. White once wrote of commas in The New Yorker: 'They fall with the precision of knives outlining a body.'
User:BarntToust, I'm pretty sure Zaathras is replying to a user sharing an op-ed from NewsBreak, which is listed as an unreliable source at
WP:RS/P. They weren't replying to you about the New Yorker. Also, just a friendly suggestion, be mindful of when you may be leaving an excessive number of messages like this, as this could be perceived as
WP:BLUDGEONING. Vanilla Wizard 💙03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh okay, I didn't realize. Apologies for any ill feelings, @
Zaathras, but I simply wished to be proactive in this, and my points do stand. Also, I take the linked essay from @
Vanilla Wizard as an essay, not my binding duty, and I plan on (albeit respectfully) continuing my dialogue for however long this continues. I saw that Zaathra posted their words directly under my New Yorker source, and I apologize for going at it under a perhaps unfortunate and misunderstood context. I'll be more pragmatic in my edits from here on out. Thanks, Vanilla, for speaking with me. Have a good one all!
BarntToust (
talk)
03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not even the same image - most obviously, in the image in the The New Yorker piece, Trump's mouth is closed and the female agent's head is higher. (It's not even quite the same image as in the Politico article - we should be using an uncropped, though still reduced, version, if at all.) —
Cryptic03:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, Vucci's work is the best here, and the subject of legitimate critical commentary. So, a Vucci image could probably illustrate it best, in the illustration of such commentary and notability.
BarntToust (
talk)
03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is most certainly going to be the image that defines this particular event, for sure 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Claire 26 (
talk •
contribs)
Delete - there would only be a valid fair use rationale if there were an article on the image itself. But using a copyrighted image in the manner it was originally intended, that is to illustrate material about what the image is of and not to discuss the image itseld, when that copyrighted image is at the height of its commercial utility is a violation of our fair use criteria and the photographer's and/or agencies right to market and profit from that image. This is a blatant fail of NFCC #2. It may well be valid under US law for fair use, but our NFCC is considerably more strict than that.nableezy -
03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Commentary was necessary to keep the image from being
deleted immediately, but it's not by itself sufficient. Every non-free image has to meet every one of the
WP:non-free content criteria, and I've still got grave concerns about #2 and #8, and lesser ones about #1 and #10 (it's not at all clear, for example, that it was first published by Business Insider). —
Cryptic03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is an historic image that cannot be recreated since the event has passed. It provides significant aid to the reader by illustrating the nature of Trump's injuries and his reaction to them.
R. G. Checkers talk03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: from the template itself ({{Non-free historic image}}): Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). The actual use of this non-free image is in the article about the event itself, not in an article about the image itself. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BarntToust read the template content. The use should be on an article or a section about the image itself, not the event. It is what is written in the template. Again: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy).JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, so the usage of non-free rationale should apply for this one, if the template is not valid in the context of an image in an article.
BarntToust (
talk)
04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
From the boilerplate notice on the template: Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). As used in the article about the event itself, this is certainly a breach of this restricted use condition. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The market role can be mitigated by reduction of its size to the point in the uncanny valley where it's illustrative but not usable outside of the context.
BarntToust (
talk)
04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BarntToust the image is right again in the infobox, which clearly shows the purpose of illustrating the event: a breach of the conditions imposed by the template stating that it should only be used when it is the subject of a commentary, not a subject of the event. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)07:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I'd argue it counts as a historic image, considering how widespread it currently is and how many people associate this event with this image and Trump's reaction.
Justrz (
talk)
03:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Jontesta Your comment didn't involve a US President being shot or two people getting killed. Please keep the sass down to acceptable levels. (I think you're a masterclass at it though, notwithstanding this discussion.)
BarntToust (
talk)
04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:COPYVIO. Historic or not (of course, it certainly is), we have guidelines to adhere to right now as a community, and I think this fact should take precedence - there are fair use images already out that depict the situation just as completely and wholly as this.
DualDoppler (
talk)
04:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, on copyright grounds, per arguments by
DualDoppler. If the photographer releases the image under a Creative Commons license, then it can be kept and moved to Commons. -Mardus /
talk05:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Like him or not, this image is going to be iconic - numerous sources are already calling this a historic image and that is not going to change. It should be removed from the infobox, and then replaced with a free image when one becomes available, but
§ Effects on Trump's public image describes the image and its impact and can justifiably be used there. --
Lewis Hulbert (
talk)
05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I see no logical or encyclopedic reason to remove the image. This image is the one most commonly used by the media and by those in social media as the means by which the event is most recognizable and understood. It is not that much different from the one most commonly associated with the attempt on Ronald Reagan's life, and is currently used on Wikipedia for the article covering said attempt. Given its wide circulation throughout the media, there is little basis to state that this image shouldn't be used because of copyright. As has been said before, this is a historic image and that alone should merit its keeping on the article.
Vivaporius (
talk)
05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong keep - as we have other copyrighted historic images that aren’t in articles discussing the image. This will very likely become an iconic image. So I think it’ll qualify as fair use.
West Virginia WXeditor (
talk)
05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's already been circulating in some of the largest media outlets out there like CNN who say as much too. From CNN: 'The images will stand in history and enrich Trump’s mythology just as surely as the picture of his mug shot in at Atlanta jail and the footage of his return to the White House in 2020 after beating a serious Covid-19 infection.' —"
Attack on Trump reopens a chilling chapter in American politics"
Keep I don't think any organization really owns the copyright of the image, its historic, and is commonly used on the internet. Dose any organization own the copyright to the image? if so which one.
Zyxrq (
talk)
05:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, since this is already being shown on multiple news websites including CNN, and is being posted everywhere online. It's the most recognizable image there can be of this event.
LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the East (
talk |
worse talk)
05:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. with respect and kudos to the photographer, the photo appears to show Trump in what could easily be seen as an ostentatiously strong light, and used alone, it encompasses the events of the day very narrowly. Additionally, whether or not we have license under Wikipedia rules to use the photo in the way we are currently displaying it on the page doesn't quite seem concrete.
Keep. The media is calling this specific image"one of the most iconic photos in U.S. history". It therefore cannot be replaced (NFCC#1) and is a significant aspect of this event which we would miss if we didn't include (NFCC#8). I note also that the article already contains discussion of the image, which would be significantly diminished without the image's presence.
Endwise (
talk)
06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm a pretty strong supporter of property rights and I am not persuaded by those on the other side of this discussion that this image meets the legal criteria for an exception to copyright protection. There are quite a few very dramatic images of yesterday's events. I am fairly sure we can find one or two that will pass legal muster and do justice to the article. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
06:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Very obviously a history-defining photo that falls under
WP:FAIRUSE, per above; case closed (Comment/Abstain proviso: I support an explicitly free-use alternative if available, but I doubt we'll see one for some time ipso facto).--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk)07:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Image is of particular note. Besides that, we don't really have a free use image to replace it, other than those of poor quality. Keep this for now and see what happens with the licensing of the image, we have a commentary on the image located within the article anyway.
Fantastic Mr. Fox (
talk)
07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep, at least until another good image can be found. I've participated in a decent number of FFDs and here's my opinion. This image is definitely historic given its importance and the degree of coverage it's getting. (It wouldn't surprise me if it gets its own article after the dust settles.) I'm quite sure it's an acceptable historic image, because it's the subject of
significant commentary. The only thing I'm worried about is whether this meets NFCC 2, respect for commercial usage. After all, we're using it to report the news--it's mostly not the subject of commentary.
The Quirky Kitty (
talk)
07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete on copyright grounds as articulated by many others. If the photographer releases the image under a Creative Commons license, then it can be kept and moved to Commons.
Craig Andrew1 (
talk)
07:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This line of inquiry is a dead-end, AP will never freely license this. However, the image is historic enough that it's fair-use, to the point that there is significant discussion about this particular image. There is a significant loss if this image is deleted. I'm voting Keep.
Bremps...08:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete All the keep !votes that don't say how it meets NFCC are not worth much. It is too early to say whether it meets NFCCP 1, while 5 and 8 are borderline at best and it definately fails 2.
Aircorn(talk)08:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, per u:HandIsNotNookls and u:JPxG (Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history"). No chance of finding a free equivalent (NFCC #1). Low-res version would not harm the author's commercial opportunities (NFCC #2). The current use is minimal (NFCC #3).
Alaexis¿question?08:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. There is one problem I notice within the opposition here. Some falsely assume that this image is propaganda and hence violates NPOV. This is easily debunked that Associated Press, the last news website to ever upload Trump 'propaganda', was the uploader of the image. Hence it is not propaganda, which as a pejorative can't be used in encyclopedic discussions, but a remarkable image overused amid a fierce political season. I would argue that 'propaganda' isn't per se unencyclopedic— if we have a stunning portrait of Adolf Hitler, that's not propaganda, that's just a perfect photo to depict him. I notice that the image has an entire critical analysis section at the bottom of Aftermath, which seems to legitimize the presence of this picture. I would suggest moving the image to that part of the art. instead, so that its significance is more obvious. GeraldWL08:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Immediate Delete The image is a blatant violation of copyright, and its continues use opens up the Wikimedia Foundation to legal liabilities. It does not meet the criteria for fair use. Anyone arguing that it is an iconic image should create a new article specifically about this image.
Hallucegenia (
talk)
08:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Specifically the claim for fair use fails condition
WP:F7 "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and may be deleted immediately.Hallucegenia (
talk)
09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, given the significant coverage of the photograph, it's entirely possible that this image should get its own page, and certainly a mention on the photographer's page. Some users seem to be confusing the question of whether we should keep this image on the
Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page, and whether we should delete the image altogether. Just like many copyrighted images, there's a clear fair use case for this. Whether or not we should use the image on the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page is a different question entirely (I would personally still lean towards, 'yes, it should be used on that page') but that's its own discussion.
Joe (
talk)
08:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, without future replacement by a free image. Historical photo, importance being noted by many reliable sources, applies for fair use, and is the most representative picture of the event. So what's the problem?
SuperΨDro09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{
subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===July 14===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.