====
- File:Waterboard3-small.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)
The closer of this debate said that "I believe this image is not replaceable with a free image. Any drawing would either be a derivative or original research" That is senseless: are all illustrations on Wikipedia original research, or derivative works of existing illustrations?. It seems like ordinary research synthesis to me, which is what encyclopedizing is. This image clearly fails the Non-free content criteria, and does so in such a convincing way that there is an example of unacceptable use on WP:NONFREE that applies: Images #4 "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)." Replace "war" with "waterboarding" and this use is verbatim prohibited by our guidelines. Overturn and delete. ➪HiDrNick! 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, seems likely to fail item 7 of the WP:FU image specific criteria - "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." (In this case technique or school of course means artistic technique rather than torture technique) it needs critical commentary on the image, not on the subject of the image. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong endorse keep - The arguments for keeping presented at the IFD discussion (which I do not see linked here, as it should have been) were compelling, and the close was correct, as nearly all editors maintained that the image is irreplaceable and of extremely high importance for our encyclopedia. The editor proposing the image be deleted from Wikipedia has apparently not actually read the detailed rationale and other background information at Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg. Badagnani (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong endorse, keep yet again. Previous Deletion attempt is here. At the absolute least this is fine for Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum and Vann Nath. It is a photograph of a painting, done by a waterboarding torture victim in a historic, world-famous prison setting. As Waterboarding's definition is strongly contested by American conservative partisans, this image is non-replaceable: it one of the few demonstrated images of a depiction of waterboarding by someone who underwent the horrible torture. Add in the fact of the extremely notable historic context of the painting, from one of the Khmer Rouge prisons, and this is not replaceable. Any hand drawing would be OR as the definition of waterboarding is disputed by partisan editors. Keep. Is this forum shopping? Not under copyright: Note from Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg#Copyright_Information:
- "As far as I can tell, this painting would not qualify for international copyright protection. The Khmer Rouge were not signatories to the Berne convention or any international copyright treaties. No subsequent government signed up to the Berne convention or anything similar; In 1996 Cambodia signed an agreement with the U.S. to bring some element of IPR rights into it's law, but it was 2003 before the Law on Copyrights and Related Rights was actually passed. Hence this painting predates copyright law in Cambodia, and any copyright claims under international treaty or convention in other countries.[1][2][3][4] Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
- This is an important consideration. Lawrence § t/e 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the two you mention I can see a possibility it would be ok, however what I don't understand is that if this is such an important and significant image for either why the articles make no real mention of it, there is no discussion of it, nothing to indicate why the image is so important to either. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a historic representation by Vann Nath of the torture he suffered. That is significant; add in that 20,000+ went into that prison, but only 7 came out makes it moreso significant. Add in the fact that Chris Bainbridge's research shows this painting isn't copyrighted anyway... it's a slam dunk endorse/keep/close. Lawrence § t/e 19:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't ask why it was important, I asked why if it was so significant to those two articles they barely mention it? As above fairuse requires some level of critical commentary, outside that it's not difficult to see why it can be perceived as "decorative". The copyright issue I would say that Copyright law can be horrendously complex, two experienced lawyers can disagree as to the status, It's not really for Deletion review to determine and assume such a stance. I'd run this past the WMF legal rep to get their view. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is discussed in the caption, as well as now in the section about the Khmer Rouge in the Waterboarding article. Let's move on, please, now, to improving our encyclopedia, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A caption isn't discussion or critical commentary and certainly isn't any significant as the claims here are that it's really really important. The Waterboarding article probably has the weakest fair use claim of the lot, but regardless the dicussion needs to occur where it is used, not just on one of the places it is used. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know a thing about international copyright law, we'd have to ask a guru at the fair use desk about that one. As it stands, the image is tagged as covered by copyright; if it were marked PD, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If someone wants to attempt to change that tag to public domain and see if it sticks, I don't have any objection to that. My understanding is that a photograph of a 2-D artwork does not have any copyright of it's own, not being a creative work, so if (if) the painting is in fact PD then the image is free to use anywhere: Waterboarding, you can print it on a T-shirt, or make your own "Waterboarding = Torture" infoboxen. ➪HiDrNick! 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep, see no compelling argument to ignore what the community already decided.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Based on new research, here, this image is now validly public domain. This DRV can be safely closed. Lawrence § t/e 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no convincing evidence that this is public domain. To determine that, we would have to prove this was PD in Cambodia in 1996, which would require knowing what the state of the laws were in Cambodia prior to Jan 1, 1996. So far, no one has shown any evidence relating to this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Endorse Keep I would like to directly address the argument: 'Replace "war" with "waterboarding" and this use is verbatim prohibited by our guidelines.' One simply can't replace one word with another and assume the guideline would come to the same conclusion. Wars are widely photographed and there is a high likelihood that free images are available. If we allow non-iconic war photos then we ultimately are saying copyright on such images is meaningless, we can take any one we want. Waterboarding is very different. It is done in secret. Images of the actual procedure are rare. Exactly what it consists of is hotly debated. The U.S. Government considers it classified. The CIA recently destroyed all footage of its post-9/11 use. So an image by a victim is exceptionally important and irreplaceable.--agr (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Between this and the photo linked on the article page, we have two sources from which to draw an image, which is plenty. I don't think what it consists of is hotly debated, just what it constitutes (torture or not torture?). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read through the archives at Talk:Waterboarding you will find that what waterboarding consists of has indeed been debated. The "torture or not torture" issue is another reason for keeping this image. Any image we drew would be criticized as POV for showing the procedure too harshly or not harshly enough. The original visual testimony of a victim is unique in this case and therefore essential to the article.--agr (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Endorse Keep Utterly irreplacible historical primary source by a notable artist/human rights campainer. (Hypnosadist) 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course. While a fair use rationale may (or may not, depending on the actual status of the image) be needed for each use, a valid fair-use rationale for a single article is sufficient to keep the image on Wikipedia. I've added one for Vann Nath. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Delete per discussion by Dr. Nick and Calliopejen1. Neutral Good (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I asked that the brightness and contrast be fixed, and it was! No reason to delete. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — the use on waterboarding may be controversial, but this image is famous, especially w.r.t. Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum. --Haemo (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, replaceable. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Unless you want me to shoot a replacement that would be whole lot more graphic, that is. --BenBurch (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. All of the concerns seem to have been addressed, so no reason remains to delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have set a copyrequest to an appropriate email should hope to hear back soon. (Hypnosadist) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|