Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:24, 3 August 2007

< August 1	Deletion review archives: 2007 August	August 3 >

2 August 2007

Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg

Two archetypal cases of appropriate fair use of movie studio publicity images. Deleted in both cases silently without closing the discussion, or reviewing the consensus. Jheald 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Information. When challenged, the deleting admin has given the explanation:

I believe both images readily failed WP:NFCC #8 and their sources were from other web sites and not necessarily press kits as required for publicity images. Please request a deletion review if you think there is an error. -Regards Nv8200p talk 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But NFCC #8 (significance) was not raised in either discussion. We generally agree that it is significant to show a major movie depiction for a fictional character. It is therefore hard to see how a image of Harry Potter for that article's main infobox would fail significance, nor illustrating the movie version of Storm in Storm (comics).

The images (Harry Potter, Storm) can be found at IMDB in their section "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" [1] [2]) (as noted in the IfDs). They can also be seen at other sites which recycle the content of official press kits, eg MovieWeb [3] [4], or Comics Continuum [5] ("20th Century Fox has provided The Continuum with large versions of the character shots from X3"). A close derivative of the Storm image is also available from the official X3 site.

The question to be decided here was WP:NFCC #2:

Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

It is clear that these were not limited-release single site exclusive images. They are the very paradigm of broad release standard publicity images. WP's use of them will in no way commercially impact that role.

Therefore, as I put it above, these two images represented archetypal cases of appropriate fair use of movie studio publicity images. The closing admin's silent decision to delete them was perverse. The decision on the Harry Potter image was particularly perverse, in view of the strong balance to keep. But the deletion of the Storm image was also perverse. Both deletions should be annulled, and a clear precedent established. Jheald 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(From closing admin) These are images that cannot verifiably be traced to a press kit and are typical of images that have been deleted in the past and upheld on deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_4#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg for a similar example. -Nv8200p talk 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (i) we don't have to show the image was from a press kit; what matters is whether it is likely to supplant the original market role of the original copyrighted media. (ii) Brunokirby2.jpg looks mis-decided, particularly in view of this image of an AP screen saying "Special Instructions: (...) ** NO SALES**". But, as per (i), that's not the test anyway. Jheald 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brunokirby2.jpg wasn't mis-decided. It was deleted on ifd and endorsed on drv because no one could prove the image really came from a press kit. The flickr web-shot you show as evidence was produced afterwards (and it's unclear if it would had prevented the image from being deleted). --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "No Sales" would mean that it is not available for Wikipedia, since Wikipedia can be reused by commercial ventures. Corvus cornix 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. "No sales" meant the users didn't have to pay AP for the shots. Jheald 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the whole idea of labelling images as "non-free", is that the non-free stuff can be stripped out before being passed to commercial ventures? Carcharoth 21:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - can't they be replaced by screenshots, which would be a much smaller percentage of a copyrighted work? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a screenshot analogous to taking an interior frame from a comic, rather than an intentionally pre-released cover? Our comics guidelines recommend the latter. Jheald 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Agree with VO. Plus, I would like proof of press kit sourcing. howcheng {chat} 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much more evidence do you reasonably expect to see, beyond what I've already set out above from IMDB, MovieNet and Comics Continuum? Besides, what matters here is not press kits, it's NFCC #2. Jheald 22:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being on many websites is evidence of nothing. Show just one website, from the copyright holder, where it's made clear that this image is intended to be reused by the media. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn If ind the argument convincing. DGG (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Like many many other cases of images believed to be promotional just because they can be found all around the net. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Those advocating for deletion continue to indicate they have no real problem with the material, just its distribution -- as though a "free" picture of Storm, or Harry Potter, could exist. They can't, and as there is ample evidence that these photos were provided for publicity -- for example, their being listed on a movie promotional website under the heading "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" -- they should remain. Again, to be clear: there can be NO free image of Storm, no free image of Harry Potter, so I'm not really sure what those who want these pictures deleted would like them replaced with. No matter where the pictures come from, no matter what website they're found on, there is NO DEBATE on who the copyright holder is of the PICTURES THEMSELVES. And that should be the only concern when it comes to whether or not we're fairly using that copyrighted material; it doesn't matter one whit, no matter what Abu says, whether or not the company distributed the material for reuse similar to ours. At the end of the day, we know who the copyright holder is, and that's what our policies are most concerned with, not what the distribution method of that material is. Also - it is HILARIOUS that the Bruno Kirby case is being cited as precedent; I highly advise those interested to check out the full story behind that image, and its improper deletion for lack of "proof" that it was, in fact, promotional. It's truly amazing, the blinders some people are willing to put on... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Free images of modern fictional characters do not exist, and demanding studio tracing proof is just trying to be difficult. Alientraveller 09:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I've spent a lot of time thinking about these situations recently, and the editors !voting Overturn here seem to share the conclusion that I came to--that the copyright holders (studios, publishers, labels) really aren't going to produce free-and-clear versions of these images no matter how much pressure we try to apply to them to do so, or how many images we delete in vain attempts to twist their giant arms. Although I certainly wouldn't have expected to, now that it's begun to happen, I now feel like the mass deletions of PD images recently have resulted in damage to the project, resulting in a less interesting and useful encyclopaedia. Even in a print encyclopaedia, I like being able to see images of the subjects of articles, and believe (after some reflection) that such images do, in fact, help me to better understand the subject than words alone could have. I don't think that we're going to get a GFDL image of Harry Potter any time soon, and I think that we're tilting at windmills if we believe otherwise. These images were clearly intended by their copyright holders to be reproduced as widely as possible (which is, in fact, their reason for existing), and I see no reason not to keep these. We aren't exploiting anyone's copyrights; we're using the images exactly as they were intended. Heather 12:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg

The images for deletion discussion was cut short in an unclear state when the deleting admin found the picture on the Corbis website (see Corbis). Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#The Corbis/Getty argument indicated that the presence of an image on the website of a major image library is not in and of itself sufficient for deletion. Our featured article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima uses Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, which can be found on the Corbis website. The previously linked discussion contains other examples. I therefore ask that the deletion be overturned and the discussion restarted to allow a fuller discussion of these issues for this particular image. Carcharoth 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(From deleting admin) More then adequate time was allowed for discussion before the image was deleted. WP:NFCC #2 requires a respect for commercial opportunities and this has been interpreted in the past to pretty much delete any Corbis/Getty image and most news agency images. After looking at the way the image was used in any of the articles, I did not think the use of the image added siginificantly to the article either.. This is my interpretation of Wikipedia's overly restrictive non-free content policy. -Nv8200p talk 17:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are still missing the point. You found it on the Corbis website and appeared to conclude from this that it "a Corbis image and so we must delete it". It is patently clear that this logic is false. If all the other admins participating in image reviews have this idea of image rights, then we are in trouble. There are many old images for which copyright status is highly unclear. Merely being sold today through commercial companies (who often buy up old archives of photos) does not mean that they know any more about the copyright status of these old images than we do. They are taking the position that until someone turns up to claim rights on an image, they will go ahead and sell it anyway. Conversely, we should take the position that until someone turns up and claims it, we can use it under fair-use if it will contribute to an article (I accept that it may not in this case, but that is a discussion we should be having at IfD). What we should not do (and what you did in this case, through no fault of your own), is assume that because an old photo is being sold by Corbis and Getty and other photo libraries, that those photo libraries have exclusive rights over the photo. Do you understand the point I am making here? I am saying that you (and others) should not be saying "since Corbis makes their business selling images, using this image on Wikipedia violates WP:NFCC #2" - exactly the same argument can be used to delete hundreds of photos - did you know that Corbis (and many other photo libraries) sell free pictures? They add value to them, but ultimately they charge for being the middleman for people who don't have the time to go and get the free images themselves. I'm not saying this is a free picture, but I am saying that an image being on the Corbis website (or any other website) doesn't automatically mean WP:NFCC #2 is being violated. Every admin dealing with image deletion needs to understand this. It is not easy, but then no-one ever said image rights were an easy thing to understand. Carcharoth 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you show that this image is not copyrighted to Corbis, you'll still have to show what's the copyright status for this image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but should that discussion take place here, or in a new IfD? Carcharoth 17:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We might begin a preliminary analysis of the Planck-Einstein image by noting that copyrighted works originating in Germany expire after 70 years, as noted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#Example_cases . The photograph was taken in Germany in 1929, and the previously displayed image of the photograph did not appear to come through Bettman/Corbis, but rather from a German-language website if I recall correctly. In any case, this photograph exists in forms other than the one displayed at Corbis. ... Kenosis 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's 70 years pma, not 70 years after moment of creation of the work. Jkelly 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's 70 years after the death of the author. -Nv8200p talk 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you. So we have some research to do. Appreciate it. ... Kenosis 17:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, back to square one on this issue. The reference to 70 years p.m.a. requires a public claim of authorship. Lacking such a claim of authorship, any copyright lapses 70 years after the date of creation. See article 1, §§1-3 of the 1993 EU copyright directive. On the evidence we have thus far, this photograph is very much in the public domain. ... Kenosis 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, here's an initial lead to a German-based website that attributes the photo to Einstein, A Centenary Volume, ed. A.P. French, Heinemann Educational Books, 1979, p58, which in turn attributes it to "AIP, Niels Bohr Library, Fritz Reiche Collection". Plainly this photograph is quite well traveled and there is no single copyright holder that's clearly disclosed. I'll look for more info and report back later. ... Kenosis 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ... And Here the photograph is for sale, but is said to have been scanned at the American Institute of Physics. So thus far we have two sellers of different manifestations of the photograph, neither of which has disclosed how they obtained rights to it or what the rights are claimed to be. Credit in this case is given to "AIP [American Institute of Physics] Emilio Segre Visual Archives, Fritz Reiche Collection" The price for obtaining a print is said to be a "service fee", presumably meaning that the buyer is merely paying the requested price of producing the print. ... Kenosis 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ... OK, I called the librarian at the AIP, based on the information at this page. The archivist is away until next Monday. He may be able to provide more specific information about the particular copy of the image they hold in their archive. Even at this stage, it is my initial impression that a low-resolution reproduction of the image, depending on where it was obtained, is likely meet all four fair-use criteria as well as the 10 WP criteria. But a clearer response from the AIP will need to wait until next week. Perhaps others will be able to provide further info about all the copies of this photograph that were initially circulated in 1929 and later, and if anyone has ever asserted a claim of sole copyright on it. I also haven't been able to confirm who the second Mrs. Einstein, who died in the 1980s, might have given rights to their copy of the image. Perhaps it will suffice to say, at the moment, that copies of this photograph have traveled far and wide through multiple routes with no indication thus far that anyone has ever claimed exclusive rights to the image. ... Kenosis 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic research, Kenosis! I wish we had 100 of you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we can do the investigation here, let's do it. If DRV regulars would rather us not hijack the page for a licensing investigation, then overturn and relist because NFCC #2 was clearly the wrong reason. (Note that I argued for deletion of the image in the first place.) howcheng {chat} 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor of putting it back up as a still-active IfD and just letting the consensus take its course at this point. Nv8200p gave a reasonable justification for closing based upon Criteria for Speedy Deletion #12 and evidence of display and rights claimed by Corbis per NFCC #2. But it seems fairly obvious at this point that the image is quite likely in the public domain and that no one of the routes it has taken (the Einstein, Planck and Bohr families/friends/colleagues at an absolute minimum) has visibly claimed any kind of exclusive copyright on the image. It's virtually impossible to conclusively prove a negative here, but the evidence thus far appears to indicate multiple routes of dissemination and no visible exclusive copyright holder. So, if Nv8200p is agreeable at this stage, it seems to me it can (a) be closed as a "keep", (b) re-opened to continue discussion, or (c) relisted from scratch. Or it can be left here for presentation of any further evidence and "voting"-- personally I have no strong preference except for a reasonable outcome consistent with the evidence we find. ... Kenosis 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a proposal to revise the speedy deletion criteria G12, a criteria that under the arguments put forward by the deleting admin could equally have been used to delete this image, is being discussed here. Carcharoth 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn this is almost certainly public domain. And it's a highly iconic picture.DGG (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based upon evidence presented thus far. This image doesn't appear to violate either CFSD #12 or WP:NFCC #2, nor any other WP:NFCC criterion such as #8 in at least several of the articles in which it was previously used. . ... Kenosis 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 :::That's 70 years after the death of the author. -[[User:Nv8200p|Nv8200p]] [[User_talk:Nv8200p|talk]] 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 ::::Ahh, thank you. So we have some research to do. Appreciate it. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 17:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
+::::<p>OK, back to square one on this issue.  The reference to 70 years p.m.a. requires a public claim of authorship.  Lacking such a claim of authorship, any copyright lapses 70 years after the date of creation.  See [http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993L0098:EN:HTML article 1, §§1-3 of the 1993 EU copyright directive].  On the evidence we have thus far, this photograph is very much in the public domain. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Comment'''. Well, [http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jr/physpiceingroup.html here's an initial lead] to a German-based website that attributes the photo to ''Einstein, A Centenary Volume'', ed. A.P. French, Heinemann Educational Books, 1979, p58, which in turn attributes it to "AIP, Niels Bohr Library, Fritz Reiche Collection".  Plainly this photograph is quite well traveled and there is no single copyright holder that's clearly disclosed.  I'll look for more info and report back later. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ... And [http://photos.aip.org/images/catalog/einstein_albert_c29.jsp Here the photograph is for sale, but is said to have been scanned at the American Institute of Physics].  So thus far we have two sellers of different manifestations of the photograph, neither of which has disclosed how they obtained rights to it or what the rights are claimed to be. Credit in this case is given to "AIP [American Institute of Physics] Emilio Segre Visual Archives, Fritz Reiche Collection" The price for obtaining a print is said to be a "service fee", presumably meaning that the buyer is merely paying the requested price of producing the print.  ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ... OK, I called the librarian at the AIP, based on the information at [http://www.aip.org/history/nbl/ this page].  The archivist is away until next Monday.  He may be able to provide more specific information about the particular copy of the image they hold in their archive. Even at this stage, it is my initial impression that a low-resolution reproduction of the image, depending on where it was obtained, is likely meet all four fair-use criteria as well as the 10 WP criteria.  But a clearer response from the AIP will need to wait until next week. Perhaps others will be able to provide further info about all the copies of this photograph that were initially circulated in 1929 and later, and if anyone has ever asserted a claim of sole copyright on it. I also haven't been able to confirm who the second Mrs. Einstein, who died in the 1980s, might have given rights to their copy of the image.  Perhaps it will suffice to say, at the moment, that copies of this photograph have traveled far and wide through multiple routes with no indication thus far that anyone has ever claimed exclusive rights to the image. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 ::Fantastic research, Kenosis! I wish we had 100 of you. &ndash; [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Special:Random|random]])</sup> 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:24, 3 August 2007

2 August 2007

Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg

Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg

Image:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg (closed)