< January 27 | January 29 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Athaenara ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Please go ahead and delete it, the legend is broken and I will re-create the image before uploading it for use in the tin sources and trade in ancient times article. Lboscher ( talk) 00:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Blast you, Fastily sock! This is the second picture I've uploaded you want to delete. Okay, I'll include the image on Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union so it will no longer be an orphan. The images quality hardly seems relevant since the picture isn't grainy. Please don't delete. Eugeneacurry ( talk) 04:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete, copyright violation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Tbsdy lives ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) {{subst:ffd top|delete, not enough source information. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete, not enough information about the subject to be useful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete, not enough information about the subject to be useful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Kept - It is a male Cairns Birdwing butterfly, A crop of this image is used (see File:Male Cairns Birdwing.JPG). Tagged for commons and description updated - Peripitus (Talk) 02:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Kept - clear mistake here. The file is not orphaned and the use of a Papilio ulysses at Kuranda Butterfly Sanctuary is clearly stated - Peripitus (Talk) 02:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep, move to Commons eventually. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete per user request. Jafeluv ( talk) 11:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Routine cleanup - file was moved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep. This has been an extremely complex and controversial deletion discussion, so I need to give a detailed explanation for why the decision is to keep the image.
Firstly, I am unable to base my decision on the OTRS ticket that has been lodged as I am necessarily not privy to the contents of this confidential information. This will be assessed by the volunteers, possibly with input from WMF legal counsel. If it is decided that this really cannot be considered to fall under fair use provisions, then I bow to legal opinion.
However, the crux of this matter is whether this image can be used on Wikipedia under U.S. fair use doctrine. After reading the debate, I believe that it can. My reasoning why this is valid under fair use is that it satisfies all fair use criteria, as set out in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107:
So this is the fair use criteria I have taken into account. However, the English Wikipedia also has a stricter set of criteria for non-free images, which are detailed under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Therefore, I have taken into consideration each of the criteria. These are:
I do understand that this will be controversial to some of you, but as you can see I have given this some considerable thought and I have provided a full justification that should satisfy whether this can be justifiably used as a non-free image under fair use. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This brings to mind one of the less-frequent complaints about our image-use policy ... that by pretty much surrendering most of the middle ground of fair use to copyright holders, it actually promotes the interests of the copyright industry (Imagine, if you dare, a future IP regime in which our FUC are written into US law. Big Media, the same big media that want to keep extending copyright into eternity because they want to eventually make enough money so that they won't have to do anything except cash checks, would love it and no one could complain because we, Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia, came up with it first)
There is a principle to defend here. I assume we don't remove information from BLPs that is reliably and multiply sourced because the subject complains the article is insufficiently hagiographic? Daniel Case ( talk) 18:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
What I am objecting to, or finding difficult to understand, is your claim that despite meeting all these other criteria we should nevertheless still delete it under a (as lawyers would say) notional violation of FUC 2 (That criterion is most often violated by photos of recent breaking news events, which is what some of us always perceived it as being meant for, not half-century old iconic photos of recently deceased legends of American literature that may well not be copyrighted anymore anyway). Daniel Case ( talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Why are we having this discussion again? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 04:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
As for the scarcity of the image being a source of future profit, again I would want the copyright holder to demonstrate that the copyright on the image was renewed in a timely fashion. The picture was one of several taken almost sixty years ago and has been in wide circulation ever since. While the rights holder may think it is still profitable to license it out, and indeed they are within their rights, it would be unrealistic to assume they could successfully suppress this image enough to restore it to profitability at this point. (The picture of Salinger that someone snapped of him leaving the local supermarket in the mid-'80s ... now, that's a money maker even today). Daniel Case ( talk) 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Anyhow, to the specifics of your comment — you are somewhat confused, as many people not involved in discussing issues that arise from it are (because it's a confusing policy, but that's neither here nor there at this particular juncture). We never use commercial photos of living people, at any resolution, because, usually, they are public people who make appearances where they permit people to photograph them and, even if no such image has been created as a free one, one could be. That's called replaceable fair use and is a reason for not using a fair-use image on Wikipedia. The idea is that by limiting ourselves to free images of celebrities, say, we encourage the creation of free content. I must admit that, as far as contemporary pics of celebrities go, this has been more successful than some of us were afraid it would be at the time.
However, when the specifics of the policy were being hammered (and I do mean hammered) out, we discussed the question of notable people such as, specifically, Salinger, who had been a notorious recluse for years. It was generally agreed that, in those cases, photos that were widely used to depict them, no matter how old, were OK (This was a descendant of what Jimbo called the "North Korea exception" to the tighter image policy, whereby fair use images of notable buildings or whatever in areas which most people on the planet cannot have access would probably be OK since it wasn't very possible that someone would be able to visit them and take free pictures (Granted, we do have some free pictures of Pyongyang subway stops and such). There are a few other such articles (ironically, even though there are less extant photos of Thomas Pynchon, one of them is his US Navy ID photo, which meant we could use a free image) where a person where we have reliable sources indicating they avoid being photographed is visually idenitified with a fair-use image (I'm not going to list them because then Damiens will try to delete them because they're not "transformative", and I don't need the extra work defending the perfectly defensible).
Since I brought up Pynchon, I must point to a crucial difference between his career and Salinger's (assuming they weren't the same person, as one theory has it :-)) is that while Pynchon has been reclusive for his entire public career, with no public appearances whatsoever and thus no photos of him since his early 20s when he wasn't a published author, Salinger only became one in the mid-1950s, after the Jacobi portraits were taken. They were widely used on book jackets and in newspaper and magazine articles for years. The New York Times used one to illustrate his obituary, as did many other publications online and off. I doubt any serious commercial value could be obtained from them anymore.
On the other hand, there are maybe two pictures that I know of taken since then, this one shows him fending off someone who shot his image from a car, probably the last good one, and an earlier picture used on the cover of his daughter's memoir. Those, IMO, have value that we would have to respect and could not be used in articles without a good reason (as, indeed, the book cover is in the main Salinger article, although frankly we should have a separate article about the book and use it only there). I would argue that, as a Google search shows heavy reuse of the Jacobi images, the one we used in particular (which was why I picked it out), that has become sort of iconic in the half-century since. For a couple of generations, it was Salinger (and if I were him, yeah, I'd prefer everyone to think I always looked that good). Daniel Case ( talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply
(outdent) Human faces aren't computer code. The efforts of police sketch artists notwithstanding (and there are many instances where the sketch proved wildly off when the suspect was finally apprehended — Ted Kaczynski, David Berkowitz, to name a few — Wikipedia deserves better. And can you be sure you'd find someone who can honestly say they'd have no idea what Salinger looks like, and can sketch decently? I think, at least, almost every American of a certain age has seen his picture, even if they don't remember doing so. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Look, I write a lot of articles about buildings. Almost every one includes as detailed a sourced description of the building as I could get. But they have photos too; I would trust neither a computer nor a person to depict the building accurately based only on an even more detailed written description than I currently write. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I'd like to see you write a description of Salinger, right here, right now, that you think could produce an equivalent sketch from someone who'd never seen an image of him. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Question: Damiens, In your opinion has there ever been a case in which a copyrighted photo of a person did qualify to be included on wikipedia under the fair use doctrine? If so, can you tell me what it is? Because,like I said, I cannot see how anything ever would if this picture does not.-- DorothyBrousseau ( talk) 07:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
As others, even those supporting deletion, have noted regarding any legal issues, if those require deletion then it will be done at the Office level regardless of the outcome of this FfD, so we should not consider it relevant that there is an OTRS complaint on this, especially as we cannot review it (and those who could cannot discuss the specifics) and do not know what the substance of it is. This discussion should stick to the FUC as its controlling authority.
I would argue that the image is historically important, precisely because Salinger had no more photographs taken with his permission for public circulation for the rest of his life and, concomitant with his apparent decision not to publish any more work after 1965 nor give interviews after 1980, became him for practical purposes. This issue of AB Bookman's weekly makes a similar point ... Jacobi's photos (there were several) are the only ones publicly circulating. Consider that before I found the first version of this image and uploaded it, Salinger's appearance in the infobox was depicted by the cover of Dream Catcher, with his young daughter in the foreground, a use which I consider less justifiable, not least because the FUC have been interpreted as saying that cover art can't be used for identification purposes save for a case (currently, purely hypothetical) where the cover art would be the only known image of a person. That's not even true here.
There is one circumstance under which I would agree we should delete this, though: if it turned out that the image was still copyrighted and that the request was being made by Salinger's family or at their behest to the copyright holder per some expressed wish of Salinger's to suppress all images of him. I know moral rights don't exist in American copyright law to the degree they do in Europe, but precisely for that reason if they are expressed informally in regards to a copyrighted work, some consideration should be given. In the case of Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath, I agreed we should not publish it due to the apparent desire of the Uemura family, who inherited the copyright from the photographer's wife at her express intent, to suppress it to the extent possible. But only under similar circumstances here, which I don't think exist, would I follow that same reasoning. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Imagine this were an AfD in which it was alleged that, despite the use of two cited instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent published sources, you were nevertheless beating the drums for deletion on the grounds that the subject of the article was nevertheless not notable (This is, of course, an entirely plausible argument to make although I have not yet seen it in practice). I think you'd agree that if we were to override the satisfaction of our own objectively-defined criteria in favor of a judgement that a subjectively-defined one had not been met, you'd need some pretty strong arguments to make to convince keep voters otherwise. You are in the same situation here.
The only argument I have seen to support FUC 2 is that the image is "rare". However, that conflates the fact that while images of Salinger are "rare" due to his reclusivity for most of his adult life, the series of images from which this was taken is not rare and indeed circulated widely, with no apparent objection raised by Jacobi, Salinger or UNH that we know of during his lifetime. An image of Salinger from later in his life which had not previously been published, or circulated widely, would be rare enough that at this point we could plausibly protect its market value by deleting our copy. But it does not follow that because Salinger declined to have any other official portraits taken that any images of him are "rare".
Your post did provide a useful link to the UNH page, and I have written to the contact there to see if she can shed any light on whether the copyright on the Salinger pictures was renewed at some point prior to UNH taking possession of them in 1981. Thank you, at least, for that. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply
And what about all those photos that were CC from Flickr when someone here found them but have since been restored by their uploaders to full copyright (as they can under CC), like another photo I found (and improved) of another recently-deceased celebrity? Surely the original authors restored full copyright because they were just waiting for the bucks/quid/euros to roll in? Whoa, get out of the way ... Daniel Case ( talk) 04:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
And as for CC, I believe section 7 does delimit the terms under which a downstream user can have the license revoked, and state that the original work can be withdrawn and republished under different licensing terms later (which is why we have Flickr reviewers on Commons verifying the work's availability on Flickr at the original date of upload). It is entirely possible that a decision to withdraw and republish under more restrictive terms could be seen as a desire to make money off the image, and only the CC license terms allow us to ignore FUC 2 if that were the copyright holder's explicitly stated intent. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep, consensus is that it meets fair use criteria. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Jesus Christ, you try to jump through the all the hoops the zealots put in around here and someone still tries to see if they can get away with deleting the image instead of, say, actually improving the justification. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
< January 27 | January 29 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Athaenara ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Please go ahead and delete it, the legend is broken and I will re-create the image before uploading it for use in the tin sources and trade in ancient times article. Lboscher ( talk) 00:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Blast you, Fastily sock! This is the second picture I've uploaded you want to delete. Okay, I'll include the image on Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union so it will no longer be an orphan. The images quality hardly seems relevant since the picture isn't grainy. Please don't delete. Eugeneacurry ( talk) 04:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete, copyright violation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Tbsdy lives ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) {{subst:ffd top|delete, not enough source information. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete, not enough information about the subject to be useful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete, not enough information about the subject to be useful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Kept - It is a male Cairns Birdwing butterfly, A crop of this image is used (see File:Male Cairns Birdwing.JPG). Tagged for commons and description updated - Peripitus (Talk) 02:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Kept - clear mistake here. The file is not orphaned and the use of a Papilio ulysses at Kuranda Butterfly Sanctuary is clearly stated - Peripitus (Talk) 02:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep, move to Commons eventually. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete per user request. Jafeluv ( talk) 11:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Routine cleanup - file was moved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file is already deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: This file has already been deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep. This has been an extremely complex and controversial deletion discussion, so I need to give a detailed explanation for why the decision is to keep the image.
Firstly, I am unable to base my decision on the OTRS ticket that has been lodged as I am necessarily not privy to the contents of this confidential information. This will be assessed by the volunteers, possibly with input from WMF legal counsel. If it is decided that this really cannot be considered to fall under fair use provisions, then I bow to legal opinion.
However, the crux of this matter is whether this image can be used on Wikipedia under U.S. fair use doctrine. After reading the debate, I believe that it can. My reasoning why this is valid under fair use is that it satisfies all fair use criteria, as set out in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107:
So this is the fair use criteria I have taken into account. However, the English Wikipedia also has a stricter set of criteria for non-free images, which are detailed under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Therefore, I have taken into consideration each of the criteria. These are:
I do understand that this will be controversial to some of you, but as you can see I have given this some considerable thought and I have provided a full justification that should satisfy whether this can be justifiably used as a non-free image under fair use. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This brings to mind one of the less-frequent complaints about our image-use policy ... that by pretty much surrendering most of the middle ground of fair use to copyright holders, it actually promotes the interests of the copyright industry (Imagine, if you dare, a future IP regime in which our FUC are written into US law. Big Media, the same big media that want to keep extending copyright into eternity because they want to eventually make enough money so that they won't have to do anything except cash checks, would love it and no one could complain because we, Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia, came up with it first)
There is a principle to defend here. I assume we don't remove information from BLPs that is reliably and multiply sourced because the subject complains the article is insufficiently hagiographic? Daniel Case ( talk) 18:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
What I am objecting to, or finding difficult to understand, is your claim that despite meeting all these other criteria we should nevertheless still delete it under a (as lawyers would say) notional violation of FUC 2 (That criterion is most often violated by photos of recent breaking news events, which is what some of us always perceived it as being meant for, not half-century old iconic photos of recently deceased legends of American literature that may well not be copyrighted anymore anyway). Daniel Case ( talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Why are we having this discussion again? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 04:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
As for the scarcity of the image being a source of future profit, again I would want the copyright holder to demonstrate that the copyright on the image was renewed in a timely fashion. The picture was one of several taken almost sixty years ago and has been in wide circulation ever since. While the rights holder may think it is still profitable to license it out, and indeed they are within their rights, it would be unrealistic to assume they could successfully suppress this image enough to restore it to profitability at this point. (The picture of Salinger that someone snapped of him leaving the local supermarket in the mid-'80s ... now, that's a money maker even today). Daniel Case ( talk) 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Anyhow, to the specifics of your comment — you are somewhat confused, as many people not involved in discussing issues that arise from it are (because it's a confusing policy, but that's neither here nor there at this particular juncture). We never use commercial photos of living people, at any resolution, because, usually, they are public people who make appearances where they permit people to photograph them and, even if no such image has been created as a free one, one could be. That's called replaceable fair use and is a reason for not using a fair-use image on Wikipedia. The idea is that by limiting ourselves to free images of celebrities, say, we encourage the creation of free content. I must admit that, as far as contemporary pics of celebrities go, this has been more successful than some of us were afraid it would be at the time.
However, when the specifics of the policy were being hammered (and I do mean hammered) out, we discussed the question of notable people such as, specifically, Salinger, who had been a notorious recluse for years. It was generally agreed that, in those cases, photos that were widely used to depict them, no matter how old, were OK (This was a descendant of what Jimbo called the "North Korea exception" to the tighter image policy, whereby fair use images of notable buildings or whatever in areas which most people on the planet cannot have access would probably be OK since it wasn't very possible that someone would be able to visit them and take free pictures (Granted, we do have some free pictures of Pyongyang subway stops and such). There are a few other such articles (ironically, even though there are less extant photos of Thomas Pynchon, one of them is his US Navy ID photo, which meant we could use a free image) where a person where we have reliable sources indicating they avoid being photographed is visually idenitified with a fair-use image (I'm not going to list them because then Damiens will try to delete them because they're not "transformative", and I don't need the extra work defending the perfectly defensible).
Since I brought up Pynchon, I must point to a crucial difference between his career and Salinger's (assuming they weren't the same person, as one theory has it :-)) is that while Pynchon has been reclusive for his entire public career, with no public appearances whatsoever and thus no photos of him since his early 20s when he wasn't a published author, Salinger only became one in the mid-1950s, after the Jacobi portraits were taken. They were widely used on book jackets and in newspaper and magazine articles for years. The New York Times used one to illustrate his obituary, as did many other publications online and off. I doubt any serious commercial value could be obtained from them anymore.
On the other hand, there are maybe two pictures that I know of taken since then, this one shows him fending off someone who shot his image from a car, probably the last good one, and an earlier picture used on the cover of his daughter's memoir. Those, IMO, have value that we would have to respect and could not be used in articles without a good reason (as, indeed, the book cover is in the main Salinger article, although frankly we should have a separate article about the book and use it only there). I would argue that, as a Google search shows heavy reuse of the Jacobi images, the one we used in particular (which was why I picked it out), that has become sort of iconic in the half-century since. For a couple of generations, it was Salinger (and if I were him, yeah, I'd prefer everyone to think I always looked that good). Daniel Case ( talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply
(outdent) Human faces aren't computer code. The efforts of police sketch artists notwithstanding (and there are many instances where the sketch proved wildly off when the suspect was finally apprehended — Ted Kaczynski, David Berkowitz, to name a few — Wikipedia deserves better. And can you be sure you'd find someone who can honestly say they'd have no idea what Salinger looks like, and can sketch decently? I think, at least, almost every American of a certain age has seen his picture, even if they don't remember doing so. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Look, I write a lot of articles about buildings. Almost every one includes as detailed a sourced description of the building as I could get. But they have photos too; I would trust neither a computer nor a person to depict the building accurately based only on an even more detailed written description than I currently write. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I'd like to see you write a description of Salinger, right here, right now, that you think could produce an equivalent sketch from someone who'd never seen an image of him. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Question: Damiens, In your opinion has there ever been a case in which a copyrighted photo of a person did qualify to be included on wikipedia under the fair use doctrine? If so, can you tell me what it is? Because,like I said, I cannot see how anything ever would if this picture does not.-- DorothyBrousseau ( talk) 07:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
As others, even those supporting deletion, have noted regarding any legal issues, if those require deletion then it will be done at the Office level regardless of the outcome of this FfD, so we should not consider it relevant that there is an OTRS complaint on this, especially as we cannot review it (and those who could cannot discuss the specifics) and do not know what the substance of it is. This discussion should stick to the FUC as its controlling authority.
I would argue that the image is historically important, precisely because Salinger had no more photographs taken with his permission for public circulation for the rest of his life and, concomitant with his apparent decision not to publish any more work after 1965 nor give interviews after 1980, became him for practical purposes. This issue of AB Bookman's weekly makes a similar point ... Jacobi's photos (there were several) are the only ones publicly circulating. Consider that before I found the first version of this image and uploaded it, Salinger's appearance in the infobox was depicted by the cover of Dream Catcher, with his young daughter in the foreground, a use which I consider less justifiable, not least because the FUC have been interpreted as saying that cover art can't be used for identification purposes save for a case (currently, purely hypothetical) where the cover art would be the only known image of a person. That's not even true here.
There is one circumstance under which I would agree we should delete this, though: if it turned out that the image was still copyrighted and that the request was being made by Salinger's family or at their behest to the copyright holder per some expressed wish of Salinger's to suppress all images of him. I know moral rights don't exist in American copyright law to the degree they do in Europe, but precisely for that reason if they are expressed informally in regards to a copyrighted work, some consideration should be given. In the case of Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath, I agreed we should not publish it due to the apparent desire of the Uemura family, who inherited the copyright from the photographer's wife at her express intent, to suppress it to the extent possible. But only under similar circumstances here, which I don't think exist, would I follow that same reasoning. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Imagine this were an AfD in which it was alleged that, despite the use of two cited instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent published sources, you were nevertheless beating the drums for deletion on the grounds that the subject of the article was nevertheless not notable (This is, of course, an entirely plausible argument to make although I have not yet seen it in practice). I think you'd agree that if we were to override the satisfaction of our own objectively-defined criteria in favor of a judgement that a subjectively-defined one had not been met, you'd need some pretty strong arguments to make to convince keep voters otherwise. You are in the same situation here.
The only argument I have seen to support FUC 2 is that the image is "rare". However, that conflates the fact that while images of Salinger are "rare" due to his reclusivity for most of his adult life, the series of images from which this was taken is not rare and indeed circulated widely, with no apparent objection raised by Jacobi, Salinger or UNH that we know of during his lifetime. An image of Salinger from later in his life which had not previously been published, or circulated widely, would be rare enough that at this point we could plausibly protect its market value by deleting our copy. But it does not follow that because Salinger declined to have any other official portraits taken that any images of him are "rare".
Your post did provide a useful link to the UNH page, and I have written to the contact there to see if she can shed any light on whether the copyright on the Salinger pictures was renewed at some point prior to UNH taking possession of them in 1981. Thank you, at least, for that. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply
And what about all those photos that were CC from Flickr when someone here found them but have since been restored by their uploaders to full copyright (as they can under CC), like another photo I found (and improved) of another recently-deceased celebrity? Surely the original authors restored full copyright because they were just waiting for the bucks/quid/euros to roll in? Whoa, get out of the way ... Daniel Case ( talk) 04:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
And as for CC, I believe section 7 does delimit the terms under which a downstream user can have the license revoked, and state that the original work can be withdrawn and republished under different licensing terms later (which is why we have Flickr reviewers on Commons verifying the work's availability on Flickr at the original date of upload). It is entirely possible that a decision to withdraw and republish under more restrictive terms could be seen as a desire to make money off the image, and only the CC license terms allow us to ignore FUC 2 if that were the copyright holder's explicitly stated intent. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep, consensus is that it meets fair use criteria. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Jesus Christ, you try to jump through the all the hoops the zealots put in around here and someone still tries to see if they can get away with deleting the image instead of, say, actually improving the justification. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply