Talk:Kim Jong Un

Q1: Why doesn't the article mention the recent news about Kim Jong Un's death/illness?

A1: While many news organizations are reporting that Kim Jong Un may be dead or gravely ill, these reports are either speculation or from unreliable sources.

Q2: Shouldn't the article at least mention that Kim Jong Un might be dead or in grave danger?

A2: Our biographies of living persons policy puts a priority on maintaining factual accuracy, not on including all the possible information. Publishing speculative rumors of any person's death isn't allowed.

Fair use image

Considering the circumstances surrounding this person, wouldn't a fair use image be usable? Consider that he is the leader of a highly restrictive regime, and where photos of this person are highly controlled by its government. It would be similar to military projects that are restricted. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

See the talk above. It's been mentioned n times already. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be very easy for the North Korean government, or its news agency, to make a nice picture available. Until they do, or someone gets a chance to photograph him, I see no reason to bend the rules. He is a living person eager to make a good impression; that fact should determine our response. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Three times, I contacted the UN Mission of the DPRK and explained the search of public-domain photographs of Kim Jong-un and Ri Sol-ju for the purpose of posting on Wikipedia. The officer, that answered, referred me to www.kpna.kp. (so, no more calling the United Nations Mission of the DPRK; we do not want to WP:Hound).

After contacting various organizations in Washington, DC, for digital photographs, I could not find a copyright free open source.

Still undeterred, I went to Dandong in PR of China, which is across the Yalu River from Sinŭiju, North Korea and, at a museum dedicated to the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, all I got was a picture of a picture of his grandfather. See Talk:Ri Sol-ju Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Modified by Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Such effort is to be applauded! Nicely done Geraldshields11! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, he went above and beyond on this one. Impressive effort on behalf of the project, GS! Snow (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So are we going to have an image or not? In the history of notable people not having any images of them on Wikipedia, this is the most ridiculous, and the reasons are obvious.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that he is a living person and a public figure, a non-free image is inappropriate since it can be replaced by a free image. We just have to wait for that free image to be made and published. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that North Korea is a non-free country a free image is very hard to come by. Therefore the fair use image is the best solution, even if some people here are slow to realize that. Kim Jong-un has been in office for a year now and there still isn't a free image and that clearly shows that a non-free image is NOT inappropriate even though some people here want to stubbornly make us believe otherways. --Krawunsel (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

People can get into NK, it's highly regulated but its not closed borders. And we have plenty of free imagery from the country, so that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So then where IS the free image of him? It's still a difference if it's a building or Kim Jong-un. Obviously it IS an issue, however many times you repeat it isn't. And, by the way, maybe you missed the comments above, from people who tried to obtain free images of Kim Jong-un and failed. I don't see how you could stick with your opinion if you had read those comments. --Krawunsel (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Because we are building a free content encyclopedia and a free image of Kim Jong-un is completely in the realm of reasonably possibility. We just don't have one now but our policy and the Foundation resolution don't allow us to include a non-free image just because a possible free one isn't presently available. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If it is "completely in the realm of reasonably possibility!" where IS the image? And our policy absolutely allows us to use an image under the fair use rationale when there's no free one available. That's what the fair use rationale has been created for! By the way, you have once again disregarded the comments above, from people who tried to obtain a free image and failed. I think that should prove even to you that there is ample reason to use an image under the fair use rationale for the time being. It could still be removed if a free image shows up, unlikely as it is. --Krawunsel (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Our non-free content doesn't care that we currently don't have a free image that otherwise should be possible to get; it is replaceable (just not at the immediate time) and ergo its use would be a violation of that policy. I do see the comments of people that tried to contact gov't and press agencies for getting a free image but that's not the only way a free image can be obtained. As noted in early convos, the one for his father actually came from Russia due to a state visit, and thus the image was free due to the release by the Russian gov't. That's one way. Someone visiting NK may be able to get a picture (he is not a recluse person). Etc. This is a textbook case of how we apply our non-free content policy with the Foundation's requirements to living persons - we just have to be patient for the image to come about. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• We just had an RfC on this subject. By far the dominant view was no, we are not going to permit a non-free image to be used on this article to depict him. Wikipedia works on consensus. Consensus was strongly against the use of a non-free image. You are welcome to start another RfC if you like. However, given the recent RfC and that nothing has changed since that RfC, it is unlikely to come to a different conclusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a site that posts things from the Korean Central News Agency, and I believe it's legitimate. On it, there's a link to a large photo gallery; nothing is in English, so I can't read it, but maybe it mentions something about image use. On the main site, there's also an e-mail option. This was released by the KCNA a couple of months ago, and I've seen it used by a number of different sources, so does anyone wanna try asking for permission? It's worth a try. Rockhead126 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If the gallery you're referring to is the one reached by following the "KNS Photo Service" link, then unfortunately it's not an option; it's a commercial site and, as best I can translate it, it's dubious they have ownership of the content in any event. As to the second option, it can never hurt to ask but bear in mind that any image donated would have to released completely for free use by the owner and I just have a hard time imagining that the KCNA is going to do that, especially given how little control they have over how the man is portrayed here as compared to their general mode of operation. Snow (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This here is a link to the original article from the online version of Rodong Sinmun. I'd say that contacting the newspaper about it would be our best bet, but I don't see any way to do so, unfortunately. :I Rockhead126 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that some people don't want to accept ANY option, they suggest options which don't work (even if you travel to North Korea, photographing is extremely restricted, and you are rather unlikely to meet Kim Jong-un walking alon the street and being happy to smile into your camera) and they debunk all other options. I've got a feeling that because North Korea is such a ferocious dictatorship, some people don't want to see the image of the head of that state in the Wikipedia at all. I'm afraid we'll never have an image of him in here. --Krawunsel (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The image used for previous leader Kim Il-sung happens to be an illustrated portrait, not a picture of Kim. Since there are, in fact, a fair number of pictures of Kim Jong-un in existence, I could take on of those pictures, and make an illustration of that picture, and we could use that. There's no problem with copyrights, ownership, etc. --Spartan7W (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you can't do that. Your version would be a derivative work of any work you are starting from and therefore burdened by copyright. The trick with the Il-sung portrait is that, if you follow back to the original commons work, it is a photograph of a portrait of the leader displayed in a public location, and per the Freedom of Panorama laws then "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner [...] When a copyrighted work in public places is copied." Thus, if there is an illustration of Jong-un displayed in a public location in N. Korea, we can start from there to make a free image. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Spartan, if you so wish, you can make your own unique caricature/illustration of Kim Jong-un. As long as it is not based off any specific work, and is your own original rendition then there should be no copyright issues. Eventually it will be replaced with a real image when he inevitably meets with a UN or US delegation. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll finish it up. (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. We've had this situation before on Susan Boyle before we could get a free photo of her; the first attempts were portraits painted by someone that released them for free, which were soundly rejected as both being derivative works and poor replacements. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How can something be considered a derivative if it is the authors own caricature and is not based off another work? If the illustration is deemed misleading, "poor" or whatever else by the community then it can be easily removed. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Going back to the Susan Boyle case, there were two painting attempts made. One was based on a screenshot from her infamous appearance on television, and that was flat out considered an original work. Another attempt was made to not directly look like any known screenshots or photographs, but even then that was determined to be a derivative work problem (since it was a amalgamation of some of these) and thus not used. Here, Spartan's pic does seem to be an amalgamation of pics of Jong-un, so we still have the potential of it being a derivative work. (And as an aside, no offense to Spartan, but it was also a rather poor picture that would reflect negatively on WP, but that's a secondary issue). --MASEM (t) 16:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a link to an article about Kim Jong-Un that contains a very good image, I believe. Also note that the image was obtained by Reuters from the KCNA, then Reuters subsiquently released it to The Globe and Mail, plus other news agencies. I think then someone should contact Reuters via this page and see if Wikipedia could use it. 167.7.9.163 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It would not be Reuter's copyright, it would be the KCNA. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well then perhaps we should ask Reuters who they contacted with the KCNA to get permission to use the photo. 167.7.9.163 (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of articles about living people which don't have photos. What's so special about this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Masem seems to want to talk everything dead. Whatever suggestion is made, he claims it's no good. I think the suggestion of Marcusmax is a very good one if we don't still decide on a picture used by way of the fair use rationale. I still think that's the best solution, whatever Masem thinks he must put against it. We should, however, remember that what Masem thinks is just one opinion. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's right with the things he says here. Let's just take action! And @ Stefan2, it's the only article on a contemporary head of state without an image in it. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's actually required by the Foundation; we are not allowed to use non-free images of living persons unless its known to be pretty much impossible to get a free image. It is not shown that this is the case for Kim Jong-un, since he's made several public showings. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• @Krawunsel; a number of people have "take[n] action" on this article and uploaded a purportedly free image, only to have the image deleted because it's not free. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

@Masem: The fact that there still isn't any image of Kim Jong-un shows very clearly that it isn't as easy to obtain one as you'd like to make believe. I've said that before but you prefer to answer with stereotype sentences that have not much in common with reality. That Kim Jong-un makes public appearances is one thing but it looks like there are only a very few select photographers who are allowed to take pictures at those events. @ Hammersoft: You're of the same brand. The images were not deleted because they WERE not free but because someone simply claimed they were without providing proper evidence to prove his claims. As long as claims mean more here than proof we've got a problem here. And I stand with it - THIS is a case for the fair use rationale as long as we don't have a free image. And as long as all images that appear are destructively claimed by someone not to bee free (without any proof for the claim, as I've said before) we won't have a "free" image for this article, at least not an uncontested one, since it seems to me that some people here are ready to contest ANY image that shows up. No, not just to contest them but to fight them with claws, and teeth. --Krawunsel (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In terms of NFC and free images, we don't care how long it takes for a free image to become available, just that it can be made. As long as he makes public appearances, a free image is possible, even if we have to wait a year or two for that to happen. Again, this is exactly a situation that the Foundation has specifically stated that we don't use non-free media in. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@Krawunsel; you appear to be of the belief that we have to prove an image isn't free before we remove it. That isn't the case. We have to prove it is free before we can use it. This most emphatically applies in the case of living people who are not (a) incarcerated, (b) a well-known (and can be shown with citations) recluse, or on the run from the law. The leader of a country is none of those things. We have free images of the two prior leaders of North Korea. Getting a free image of the current leader is simply a matter of time. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course you have to prove that an image is not free, Masem! If you make a claim, you gotta prove it. Otherwise it's just an allegation and might be a lie. We can't base Wikipedia decisions on allegations and lies! --Krawunsel (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the reverse, actually. We assume any image or media is non-free unless proven otherwise. This is due to present copyright law that says copyright is implicit on publication -thus making any work non-free by default. We need proof of free-ness - whether explicitly licensed as such, age (as to fall into the public domain) or other facets that would negate copyright issues. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Emailing the KCNA

Okay, guys. I've decided to send an e-mail to the address listed on the KCNA website, asking permission to use this, Kim Jong-un's official portrait. As I've mentioned before on here, I'm not entirely literate in the area of image copyright. I assume I need to ask for a letter of authorization like [File:Kremlin authorisation-English.pdf], but I'm not entirely sure how to word this beyond "To whom it may concern." Can someone help me out? Rockhead126 (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some instructions on how to proceed at WP:CONSENT, WP:BRP and Commons:COM:OTRS. KCNA might find Commons:COM:OTRS/ko and Commons:Commons:메일 양식 useful. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm using one of the examples at WP:BRP as a template. No idea what Commons:COM:OTRS/ko and Commons:Commons:메일 양식 are about. Should I say, "For more information, you can refer to..." and then include links? Rockhead126 (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Any thoughts, people? Any changes? Recommendations? Obviously, this is a long shot, so I'd like to maximize our chances. Input is greatly appreciated.

To whom it may concern,

I am one of the many volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org), the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia is among the top 5 visited sites on the Internet, and its sister site Wikinews (en.wikinews.com) is a well-viewed news source.

Since 2006, our site has featured an article about the son of General Kim Jong-il and current leader of the DPRK, Kim Jong-un. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-un>. Unfortunately, the article lacks is an image of the subject, a problem unique among articles about current world leaders. Although many images of Kim exist online, these are all copyrighted and therefore our in-house policies forbid us including them with any article or news report we may produce.

The article would definitely benefit from a usable good quality image of Kim Jong-un, which is why I am requesting permission to use the photograph attached below, an official portrait, which was released by the KCNA in April of 2012.

Since Wikipedia aims to be a repository of images and information that anyone can use, even in nations where generous United States "fair use" provisions are inapplicable, we can only use images that are released under a so-called "free license", which permits anyone else to use, modify, or deal commercially with the image concerned if they wish, provided there is appropriate attribution and that any modifications are released under an identical license. (Exceptions may be made if there is no possibility of such an image being available by other means, but that is not practical here - we don't have the capability to take good quality publicity photographs of Kim Jong-un ourselves.)

Example licenses that would permit us to use a better-quality image would be: the GNU Free Documentation License <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html> or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode>. Be assured if you do not grant permission or provide such an image, we will not use one without permission. You are under no obligation to release any material under such licenses, but for public-relations purposes, you might want to consider it given Wikipedia's great popularity.

With your permission, we would then credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, with a permanent link back to your website for any reader of the articles in which it appears.

You can read more at <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing>, and a range of "frequently asked questions" can be found at <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FAQ>. A simple form of consent can be found at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries>.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

(My name)

Volunteer editor, Wikipedia.

Rockhead126 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"image of the Kim Jong-un" should read "image of Kim Jong-un". --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Edited. Good catch. Thanks. Rockhead126 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions: This is the DPRK we're talking about, and I'm quite sure that an employee of the KCNA might know about things such as The commons and privatised ownership. We might end up dealing with an individual who is extreme pro-socialist, anti-capital, anti-private ownership, and dreams of a worldwide socialist utopia, and I think it's quite likely given the nature of the people we'll be contacting. It might be the possible that by explaining how free (libre) content compares with copyrights in terms of public ownership and capital sales, we'd get more sympathy. I think it might be beneficial for us to change our wording to reflect this, to increase our chances of success. For example,

• Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, which aims to provide information to the masses, free of charge, as noted by our mission/core policy/whatever. We provide content without any restrictions, so that all people can freely access our encyclopedia and learn from it.
• Our encyclopedia can only accept images that are under a free license. We cannot use images that are under copyright, because the terms of such usage are rather restrictive, and do not conform with our blahblah etc freedoms that our website strives to aim towards. Content that is copyrighted is under the ownership of the private individual, so that they may sell their works for profit, whereas free license content can be freely used by anyone without reprimand.
• We believe that using an image of the son of the Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, General Kim Jong-un, we can significantly improve the quality of our encyclopedia, and provide a better standard to everyone who wishes to learn from our encyclopedia. Currently we are unable to obtain a free license image of General Kim Jong-un, which is why blahblah etc etc
• Information should belong to the masses, and not be restricted to the individual so that they can use it for their own gain something something (man I dunno, make some kind of analogy that's easy for a far-left wing to understand, and makes them happy too) By providing us with a free image of General Kim Jong-un, we are able to freely provide a service to all etc etc
• They might not understand what are Alexa rankings and the significance of being within the top 5 highest traffic sites, they might not understand what is Creative Commons (and merely linking the URL might not do; keep in mind that these people have an entirely different mindset, and have grown up in a world detached from everything international), they might not even look positively towards calling anything related to the United States "generous". We have to explain things from the base up, and not assume that they know everything that we, the people of the outside world, know.
• Again, regarding "United States", it might seem tedious, silly and unnecessary, but it's these little things that count. Little things are quite important for North Koreans; take a picture of any statue of Kim Il-sung from behind, and they'll immediately deport you because to them, it's disrespectful. In my opinion, avoid mentioning things that shouldn't really be mentioned, such as the United States, to which even to this day the DPRK does not even recognise.
• I know you haven't done this wrong, but just a quick mention in case people come up with future revisions. In some cases, you can avoid saying some undesirable things by using others. Examples of how to put things nicely without actually lying: Don't say Wikipedia is hosted in the US, say that it is an international site with contributors from around the world (that's not a lie, isn't it?). Don't say we can't do things because rules say so, instead say that it's against our goals and visions. It might seem like doublespeak euphemisms, but it's better than going all-out blunt and losing the sympathy of the people we're trying to deal with. Another thing that you've done well, though, is that you should always use "DPRK" and not "North Korea", something they take offense at, and refer to leaders using their titles. Just another note for other people in case someone else wants to make another revision in the future.

If we can somehow make analogies with Marxist socialist theory or something, we might get a better outcome. Sounds crazy initially, I know, but keep in mind that people look positively towards, may I say, pandering, and saying nice things to them is exactly how CNN reporters get into North Korea in the first place (there's a Vice documentary that describes this). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Having a more detailed read, I have a few points to make. You can choose to take into account some, any, all or none, these are merely my opinions, and could be right or wrong.

• Quote: "these are all copyrighted and therefore our in-house policies forbid us including them with any article or news report we may produce" - don't make it that we're merely using an excuse that our Wikipedia policies forbid us from using non-free content. Make it sound like we actually strive to provide free content. Something like "these are all copyrighted, and so we cannot use them as such material conflicts with the aims and goals of our free encyclopedia". Restrictions aren't an excuse, they are there to ensure that we create a free encyclopedia. Mentioning this will make someone who has grown up in a socialist setting and have learnt about the virtues of socialism all their life through their education, find our cause more appealing.
• Quote: "Wikipedia is among the top 5 visited sites on the Internet" - they probably don't understand, or don't care, or both. Most North Koreans don't even have free internet, and I'm sure an employee of the KCNA might know the basics of the internet, but not actually willing to dwelve too much into it.
• Explain what each of the licenses mean. Don't expect them to click a URL and read 30,000 words of boring drivel that they might not understand. The GNU Free Documentation License is written entirely in legalese, and I sincerely doubt that our poor KCNA employee would want to read this holy scripture from Richard Stallman.

Comments are welcome. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ you spergs just add a goddamn picture already — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.116.230 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• If you have a goddamn free license picture, we'd be happy to add it. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone tried asking Dennis Rodman for a picture? He seems to be one of the few people outside N.K. with a very friendly relationship with Kim Jong-un and I heard he's returning to N.K. in a couple of weeks for a 2nd visit -A1candidate (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• We seriously need a photo of KJU, pronto. No pics on Flickr under Creative Commons licensing? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Some pics here. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Some of them do not show Kim Jong-un. Many of the look like typical photos put out by the North Korean state propaganda, and some even contain a watermark telling that the images come from Chosŏn Chung'ang T'ongsin. https://secure.flickr.com/photos/josephferris76/6968981520/ might meet Commons:Template:FoP-North Korea (see Commons:Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#does FOP-Mexico really not require permanent installation?). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't know that someone sticking copies of a Korean newspaper up would constitute KCNA's release of rights. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Picture: Reply

Hello

I have included two pictures in my contribution (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_Jong_Un.jpg, on horse gazing at the distance and http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Marshal_Kim_Jong_Un.jpg, portrait). The images have been nominated for deletion which I do not believe complies with the wikimedia commons since according to what I have been able to analyze of the translations of The Copyright Law of DPRK available and wikimedia guidelines I have come to the following conclusions:

1) USA and North Korea (DPRK) have no copyright relations, therefore the copyright law that should prevail would be that of DPRK.

2) The Copyright Law of the DPRK [1] declares it's fundamental intent is "to contribute to the development of literature and the arts and science and technology" (Chapter 1). This declares that contributing to developing literature, arts, science and technology, all of which can be used to describe contributing it to the further development of Wikimedia Commons, is compliant with it's foundation.

3) Article 12, Chapter 1 of the aforementioned law declares that "The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright". The image in question corresponds to the informative bulletin on the current North Korean president and as such it should not be regarded as subject to copyright according to the Copyright Law of the DPRK [1]. Therefore this file can be regarded as intended for public domain use and no copyright applies to it.

4) Regarding to copyrighted works, it states that "disseminating them by reproduction, performance, broadcasting, exhibition, distribution, adaptation and compiling" is an important undertaking, highlighting its approval regarding the use of copyrighted works (Chapter 4, Article 26 of DPRK Copyright Law [1]). This conveys that, under DPRK copyright law, even if an image were to be a copyrighted work, it's dissemination by any form of reproduction, performance, broadcasting, exhibition, distribution, adaptation or compilation would, in fact, be encouraged.

5) Furthermore Article 32 on the same chapter states that a copyrighted work may be used without permission of the copyright owner when the copyrighted work is reproduced for depositing, displaying, reading or lending in archives [1]. According to the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary "a repository or collection especially of information" is the definition of an archive [3], as Wikimedia commons considers itself a "media file repository" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome), if it were to include a North Korean image under North Korean copyright, which in any case this image has not proven to be, inclusion of it within Wikimedia Commons is in compliance with DPRK's copyright law.

6) In addition, article 32 goes on to state that a copyrighted work may be used without permission of the copyright owner when the use of such copyrighted work is performed free of charge[1] like it is currently included.

[1] DPRK copyright law, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_of_the_Democratic_People's_Republic_of_Korea (translated and copyright free). [2] News in Korea - Naenara, http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/news/index.php . [3] Archive - Merriam Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archive .

If you agree with my conclusions please state your support. If you don't and have any other available information on the subject of DPRK law that might dispute this please let me know your point of view. Sugar128 (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The images are not "free" under US law. There is no claim that the works are either in the public domain or a Creative Commons-compatible license, only that, like US, there is an aspect of fair use with the images - your point 4 - but this doesn't remove the copyright from the original works. That would qualify them as non-free for us at Wikipedia, which means 1) they can't be hosted at Commons (that requires them to be free) and 2) we can't use them to illustrate a living person by non-free content policy. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Your point 6 translates as a non-commercial license. We permit the use of Wikipedia content for commercial purposes, including for charge. Therefore, anything licensed as non-commercial is for our purposes non-free, and if we are to use it we must do so under terms of WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Both images under discussion have now been deleted from Commons as copyright violations. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, Article 12, Chapter 1 of DPRK copyright law declares that current news and bulletins by the state shall not be the object of copyright. The image in question is from one of such bulletins on current North Korean president and as such it should not be regarded as subject to copyright according to the Copyright Law of the DPRK. At the same time this makes it free to use in the US and this should mean that we should be able to upload it to wikimedia commons and even make mugs, funny t-shirts or target practice dummies with it if we feel so inclined. I don't understand why an image cannot be used if the law of the country of origin says it is not regarded as subject to copyright making it free to use within the US. Sugar128 (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• As you noted in point 6 above, there's a requirement for non-commercial use only. This is incompatible with our definition of free. Furthermore, the site from which the image of him on horseback was taken clearly has a copyright claim on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said point 6 refers to images or which copyright applies and it does NOT apply to this one since DPRK copyright law clearly says that current news and bulletins by the state shall not be the object of copyrightSugar128 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A picture from a website run by the government is arguably not the same as "news and bulletins". Considering that we've had the same issue with Kim Jong-Il and getting a free photo despite the likely proliferation of images on DPNK's website, I doubt our concerns have changed here. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• The website you're getting the images from certainly seems to think their works are copyrighted. I'd trust their judgment over any of ours. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

FAQ

Just created Talk:Kim Jong-un/FAQ, it's quite a rough piece of work that gets the general idea across, feel free to brush up some things here and there. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email

I've found a picture that has the CC-BY-SA license

The following picture of Kim Jong-un is available on Flickr and has the CC-BY-SA license, which is acceptable. http://www.flickr.com/photos/54050720@N05/6549444309 --DrAndrewWinters (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Commons:Flickrwashing. The Flickr user isn't the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Then who is? --DrAndrewWinters (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

According to picture 5 in this gallery from the Washington Post, a Yao Dawei and the Associated Press. Someone tried to put to Commons and use this earlier, but a Tineye.com search confirmed it was a Flickrwashing. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the caption for the photo in this article (http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/12/kim-jong-ils-son-called-military-supreme-leader), the photo is from Creative Commons. It's the same picture that is on that Flickr page in the link I posted above. --DrAndrewWinters (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that that flickr user has zero other images on their flickr account from North Korea (or any other country outside the US), it seems extremely fishy that that is a legitimate original photo. The fact that a reliable source gives AP and photo credits, I'm much more incline to consider it a press photo than a random CC-BY photo that happened to end up on Flickr. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's the only picture I could find that at least claimed to have a free license. Other than that, I guess we're doomed. --DrAndrewWinters (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

His religion?

How can you have a long article about a world leader, go on and on about his rooting interest and talk about the kind of cigarettes he smokes, and mention nothing about his religion or ultimate commitments, the most important thing about him or any person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj3061 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying that religion is one of the most important things for a person is an unjustified assumption that only you and like-minded people share alone. Plenty of people don't care whether John Smith likes this imaginary sky daddy, whether Jack Smith likes that imaginary sky daddy, or Jane Smith likes no imaginary sky daddy. The statement you have made is merely your own opinion, and it's one that not everybody shares. Furthermore, we do not have reliable sources regarding his religion. Previous attempts to add "Juche" as a religion to the pages of Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un were also reverted because there are no reliable sources that state that Juche is a religion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. As a living, breathing example that religion isn't "the most important thing about[...]any person," I couldn't have said it better myself. Rockhead126 (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"...only you and like-minded people share 'alone'"? Whatever beliefs to which one is bound (*religio-*) comprise his or her religion. Everyone has such important beliefs. They are the kind of beliefs which are necessary on the basis of which to argue against others' religious beliefs. The beliefs of Kim Jong-un which are most important to him should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj3061 (talk • contribs)

Alright then. Find me a reliable source that tells me what he believes in then. We obviously haven't found one yet; why don't you help us figure out what his religion is. I certainly don't know what it is; it's not like I can call his phone and ask him. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Religion is important to some people, unimportant to others, and sometimes not present at all. It is more than possible that a supreme leader of a brain-washed country might not admit to a belief in any power higher than himself, so as to allow his subjects to venerate him in lieu of a less tangible deity. Such an attitude might also make it unlikely for him to express a belief that deities do not exist, for similar reasons. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2013

Please add a picture. Maybe this one: http://www.enational.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Kim-Jong-un.jpg

I should have read the other requests first... Carpkitty (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As you see, we have to find a free image - not just any random image around the web to use here. --MASEM (t) 06:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As if you and Hammersoft weren't doing anything to derogate ANY proposed image as not being free - without, of course, offering any proof for your allegations. I'M afraid, given the attitude of the two aforementioned people we'll never have an image in this article. --Krawunsel (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

We have to. This is a requirement the Foundation has put on all its projects ,including Wikipedia, to use free images of living persons. And you have to prove an image is clearly free to be able to use it that way. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this a free image?

There's a video by the Voice of America over here. Its by a reporter working for the official external broadcasting network of the United States, so its probably not copyrighted. (There's even a download button just below the video). And if you fast forward to 0:53 it briefly shows a video sequence of Kim Jong-Un for a second or so, and I doubt this is from N.K. state media because there will be a logo displayed at the top left, which isn't the case here. -A1candidate (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless we know where that original footage originated from (its fair to state that we can't expect it to be from VOA or the US gov't), VOA is probably using the media under fair use pretenses, which means they are free to include it but doesn't make it PD. In fact, their copyright statement [1] is clear this often is the case, particularly with AP footage. Now, it is bad form they don't credit the sources, but again, we can be reasonably confident that VOA didn't make it and thus we can't assume PD. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that parts of the video contains the logo for Chosŏn Chung'ang Pangsong. The logo is not there when Kim Jong-un appears in the video, but it still tells us that VOA got some parts of the video from other sources. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - early life

It should be added, after recent news something in this style:
In the 2013 one of the newspapers published photo of the Kim Jong-un taking part in the school musical "Grease". According to this he was about 11 years old, studying in private Bern school under false name and identify. Despite the quite high cost of this high school - (annual fee about 19000 euro), the official cover was that he is a son of the North Korea embassy driver.
Reasons of inserting:

• Little is known about his previous life
• Published info with photo
• High cost of private education, and it look like "child playing" of North Korea forces - how many drivers can insert they child in the so costly schools?
• This leads to the fact that other special forces and governments may known(or did a big miss) about his presence.
• Possible another prove that he may be secluded from friends even in school - mostly children may see him as a strange, because of they "rich parents".

Attached photo probably can be inserted in the English Wikipedia, as a "fair-use", low resolution because of the not known material about him.

 Not done: The article already discusses reports that he attended school in Switzerland near Bern under an assumed name. I don't see anything here that would add to that - tabloid articles from Bild and the Sun are not going to lend a great deal of weight to the article. If you think the photo should be uploaded to Wikipedia, you should submit it to WP:Files for upload. --ElHef (Meep?) 04:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• We will not be using a non-free image of Kim Jong-Un for depiction purposes. See RfC on the matter. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Real date of birth?

I've come across an article stating that Kim Jong-un's date of birth (Jan 8) is actually a part of the North Korean governments obsession with numerology. In Asian cultures numerology is a rather important aspect of spirituality etc and the number 9 itself is regarded as "lucky" (for lack of a better term) thus Jan 8 equals 1+8=9. Here is the article referring to his date of birth & numerology and another one from The Guardian which copies it, though with some changes. Should we make some mention that there is doubt over the month & day (let alone year) of his birth? Coinmanj (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the confusion over his age was due to Korean age reckoning. Guess I might be wrong. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I would not trust any date of birth indicated by North Korean sources. For example, Kim Jong-il's date of birth was moved one year so that it would be possible to claim that he was born at a holy mountain. I would not be surprised at all if it turns out that Kim Jong-un's official date of birth also is wrong. If you want an accurate date, I'd assume that you would have to check whether old issues of Rodong Sinmun or Chinese or Soviet sources report that the Dear Leader has got a son, or you could check the size of Ko Yong-hui's stomach on old photos, as people were doing with photos of Ri Sol-ju last year. However, now we are close to the area of WP:OR, so we'd better leave this problem to researchers instead. I don't know if the article would warrant a section about the date of birth uncertainty. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of young Kim Jong Un

Hello, I'm just asking if the alleged photos of Kim Jong Un in his young years are copyrighted. Check google for pictures. Reepy1 (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• The question has to be asked in reverse for our purposes; is a given picture free of copyright or available under a free license? We presume copyrighted, non-free until we have proof otherwise. To date, no one has found such an image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Image

Seriously, what's the worst that can happen if we use a so-called copyrighted photo of Kim Jong-Un? What, will KCNA file a copyright claim against Wikipedia? They're a rogue and isolated state, they can't do anything even if they wanted to. And Wikipedia is a pillar of freedom of information, we might as well use their "copyrighted" material as a stand against them. 128.223.223.65 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We honor copyright as a general principal and a matter of settled policy 100% of the time, with no consideration as to whether we like or dislike the copyright holder. Accordingly, I oppose your idea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The restriction against the image has zero to do with the legal ramifications of copyright law against the Wikimedia foundation - it is more because we have a specific resolution from the Foundation to promote free content creation and minimize non-free content. It's a core principle of the entire set of wikimedia sites. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be a case for the fair use rationale, have you ever thought about that? --Maxl (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

We have thought about that, of course. There has been lengthy discussion here and here, and the conclusion is that fair use images of Kim Jong-un are not acceptable, per Wikipedia policy on non-free content. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And at the RFC on the subject. The proposal to allow a fair use image was, by far, the minority opinion. Consensus can change, but for now the standing consensus is we will not be using a fair use image of Kim Jong-un. The RFC pretty much stands as law, so far as using a fair use image here is concerned. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think opponents are sticking to their guns on not employing fair-use in this article either 1) out of stubborn pride, or 2) to wean wikipedia away from the unsettling gray-area of fair-use. Either way, I think a non-free image will eventually win-out in this case, but not after a fair amount of unnecessary chest pounding. Poshzombie (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Poshzombie. Somehow, a few people here, like Masem and Hammersoft, are trying to keep ANY image out of this article. Anyway, if I remember the cited discussions correctly it was just the two who were against using a picture under the fair use rationale. And two people were hardly the majority in those debates unless you count the thickness of their skins against any sensible arguments... I could go on... but better not... politeness keeps me from continuing... :) --Krawunsel (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)