Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-free content review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) at 14:17, 17 June 2010 (→‎File:PicassoGuernica.jpg: closing discussion - continue in context at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Non_free_images & Talk:History_of_painting#Dealing_with_non-free_images). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:FUR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.
WP:FUR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Non-free content review/guidelines

File:ScarfacePacino.jpg

Nonfree image previously used only as general illustration for film castlist section. The article includes no text relating to the image, the scene it is take from, or the visual appearance of Pacino in the film, indicating not only failure to meet WP's NFCC criteria, but making the "fair use" status of the image uncertain. Several different nonfree images are used to illustrate the relevant character article, but not this one. Removal of image from article has been disputed with no explanation other than "reasonable FU". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is right that it is not just an iconic image of the film but it goes down as one of the iconic images of cinema of all time. Using the image for plot may not meet wikipedias' somewhat warped fair use guidelines but using it for critical commentary, discussion of drugs below will.... Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Flipside photos

File:Effigi2BurningFlipside2008.jpg

Image is marked with CC-SA-BY-3.0 license, but image comes from non-free event with restrictions on commericial reuse. See <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2008.pdf> on page 13. "Burning Flipside is a private event. The commercial use of photographs, video, film or any other medium taken at Burning Flipside is prohibited without written permission of Austin Artistic Reconstruction, LLC." Spectre9 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Austin Artistic Deconstruction has no legal authority to control commercial use of photographs taken at their event, unless they own the photographs. If a photographer violated the terms of a contract with Austin Artistic Deconstruction, that's between the photographer and Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Wikipedia's use of the photograph is not subject to any such contract. Kaldari (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the photograph is of a sculpture, produced with funding from Austin Artistic Reconstruction. Do your research on D.A.F.T. As the artwork is a commissioned work with funding from the admission price to the event. Sculpture even burning sculpture is protected by copyright and you need permission of artist or non-free-use rationale. 70.123.121.92 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a valid argument since there is no freedom of panorama in the US for sculpture. Kaldari (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BFMonkey.jpg

non-commercial use restricted at private event per Austin Artistic Deconstruction, LLC. see <http://web.archive.org/web/20010908175028/www.burnaustin.org/history/archive/flipside99/survivalGuide.html>, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2007.pdf, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2008.pdf> Spectre9 (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This argument incorrectly applies the published policies regarding photography at Flipside. The policy in effect at the time the photo was made is the first citation, the other cites are for policies that were created 'after' this photo was made. Looking at the first policy, note that it speaks to photos of people and images on individuals, none of which are visible in this photo. SteveHopson (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Austin Artistic Deconstruction has no legal authority to control commercial use of photographs taken at their event, unless they own the photographs. If a photographer violated the terms of a contract with Austin Artistic Deconstruction, that's between the photographer and Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Wikipedia's use of the photograph is not subject to any such contract. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BFRocket.JPG

license is wrong, as non-commercial use restricted at private event per Austin Artistic Deconstruction, LLC. see <http://web.archive.org/web/20010908175028/www.burnaustin.org/history/archive/flipside99/survivalGuide.html>, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2007.pdf, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2008.pdf> Spectre9 (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Austin Artistic Deconstruction has no legal authority to control commercial use of photographs taken at their event, unless they own the photographs. If a photographer violated the terms of a contract with Austin Artistic Deconstruction, that's between the photographer and Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Wikipedia's use of the photograph is not subject to any such contract. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after some research, I think I have a coherent opinion on these. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States where Burning Flipside is held, and so the photographs are derivative works of the sculptures. The contract between attendees and Austin Artistic Deconstruction (AAD) seems fairly irrelevant to the considerations here, since the existence of these photos demonstrates that people are willing and able to violate that rule. As far as I have been able to tell, while the effigies are funded by AAD (asserted above by the IP) and constructed by DaFT, the actual designs (proposals) are submitted by what appear to be independent artists [1] [2]. Even if the artwork is commisioned (as also asserted by the IP), that is no guarantee that the copyright is transferred, so it seems to me that it would be possible for the designer of the sculptures (i.e., copyright holder) to take a picture and release it here freely, making these arguably fail WP:NFCC#1. At the very least these should be retagged as non-free since we can't assume that the photographers are the copyright holders. Anybody want to point out where/if I've gone wrong? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per lack of response all have been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 11. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PicassoGuernica.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The painting Guernica is obviously one of the most significant in Picasso's oeuvre. But it is also copyrighted, and thus we are compelled by the non-free content criteria to limit its use in the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, this painting seems to be an unusually popular choice for illustrating various concepts outside the context of critical commentary. It was recently removed from the posttraumatic stress disorder article, for instance. However, it remains present in several articles which may be problematic.

As of this writing, the article appears in the following articles:

  • History of painting, Western painting, 20th century Western painting
    • The usage in all three of these articles is essentially identical. Guernica is displayed in a gallery, even though non-free galleries are strongly frowned upon, as I recall. On the bright side, the articles do each contain (the same) extensive discussion of the image. I think these uses are probably okay ultimately; even though it's used in a gallery, that seems to be merely a presentation issue in these cases.
  • Pablo Picasso
    • Fine, obviously.
  • Biscay
    • Highly questionable. First and most importantly, there is no fair-use rationale for this article on the description page. Second, the article in question does not even mention the painting in its text; the reference in the caption is brief and not particularly illuminating. It appears to be being used only for illustration here.
  • Condor Legion
    • Again, no fair-use rationale. The article mentions the painting only in passing and we need not display the image to convey necessary information.
  • User:Cretanforever
    • This was just added earlier today; I've removed it as non-free images aren't allowed in userspace.
  • The Third of May 1808
    • The article does say that Guernica was influenced by The Third of May 1808, but doesn't go into any detail and does not require the image to be close at hand for readers' understanding.
  • Bella No. 2
    • No fair-use rationale. The article contains unreferenced claim that Guernica may have been inspired by Bella No. 2. No support for this is included, referenced or otherwise, making the inclusion of the copyrighted work questionable at best.
  • Guernica (painting)
    • Although not listed under "File links" on the description page, obviously this image is used in the painting's article's infobox. Obviously the most permissible use of this image possible.

In short, I would recommend that this image be removed from all pages except History of painting, Western painting, 20th century Western painting, Guernica (painting), and Pablo Picasso.

-- Powers T 13:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationales all appear to be the same, and none are unique or tailored to the specific use. It's like when I see someone using a FUR tempalte, and adding "educational use" for the purpose. If you believe fair use rationales can be written for all those uses, then please do so. But as it stands, I don't consider any of the FUR valid, as the purpose has not been adequately addressed. WP:FURG -Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to think that the rationale for the article about the painting might be sufficient, just inherently as the article about the painting. But otherwise I completely agree. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by the barest minimum you could say that the FUR for the article about the painting is acceptable. The other clones are blatantly not. Andrew, you're right, the FUR is in desperately bad shape. Powers, I agree with all of your analysis except, to some degree, the one concerning The Third of May 1808. As a matter of art history, the relationship between it and Guernica is a very important one, the visual comparison of the paintings is of high educational value, and the images should be in the same article to maximize readers' understanding. That said, the article can and should go into more detail about the relationship between the pictures. As for Bella No. 2, the entire purported connection between it and Guernica appears to be OR. I see Guernica was added to the article by an IP a few months ago without explanation, discussion, etc. It should be expeditiously removed.—DCGeist (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am essentially a layman when it comes to art history and analysis, but I think that only highlights the insufficiency of the article as it stands. A layman ought to be able to tell from reading the text how important an image is to understanding. Or, more to the point, by reading the fair-use rationale. Powers T 00:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. My phrasing above was a little loose. I didn't disagree at all with your analysis of the current situation with The Third of May 1808. Rather I wanted to raise a point relating to the consequences of your analysis. I believe Guernica does merit a place, per our policy, in the article, but, indeed, both article and rationale must be stronger (in the case of the rationale, much stronger) for that place to be secured.—DCGeist (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image of Guernica from Bella No. 2, which I have marked for speedy deletion as an obvious and complete hoax (though a clever, amusing one).—DCGeist (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least for now I've removed the image from all articles except for those proposed by LtPowers. I am in agreement that it could fit into The Third of May 1808, with the current explanation of the relationship amounting to a single sentence I believe more article work is required before that use passes WP:NFCC#8. I will see what I can do about the FURs for the remaining article usage later. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as the Legacy section of The Third of May 1808 now has two relevant images—one of which is free, the other of which has both a good FUR and solid treatment in the article—there's no need to restore Guernica to it, which would clutter the section.—DCGeist (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also previous discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_4#Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg. Ty 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your input! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt to provide legitimate fair use rationales for the pages on which it now appears. I make no pretense to being familiar with the history of art or the significance of this work, so I'd appreciate it if someone would review my changes. I'm largely happy with the rationale I wrote for Guernica (painting), and Pablo Picasso. The rationale I wrote for 20th century Western painting might be acceptable, but the rationales for Western painting and History of painting are essentially clones of the rationale for 20th century Western painting. However, since the usage in all three of these articles is essentially identical (as noted by Powers), perhaps largely identical fair use rationales for these three articles is also OK. —RP88 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to me. The only possible lingering issue I see is if someone remains of the opinion voiced by CBM in the previous discussion mentioned above that "The painting should not appear in more than one of these: Western painting, History_of_painting, Art. Using it in all three ignores the "minimal use" principle. Just because a painting is well known cannot justify using it in every overview article." (now applying to the three "cloned" FURs you just mentioned). I don't personally feel that WP:NFCC#3a limits the number of articles, however, just the number of images per article, so as I said, it looks good to me. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmm... I'm unsure about my opinion of NFCC#3a here, because I see WP:NFC#UUI #5 which states "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)", so maybe it does need removed from more articles? If there's anyone else who thinks it needs to be trimmed from more articles, speak up, otherwise I'll close this discussion soon as it's at least mostly resolved. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet more information: at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive196#Overused non-free images Masem points out that the wording for 3a used to be "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole" (emphasis added), but it was removed as being redundant. So I guess that changes my earlier opinion. Of the three articles with cloned rationales (20th century Western painting, Western painting and History of painting), does anyone have an opinion as to which use seems most pertinent? To make things even more fun, the text accompanying the image appears to be cloned in all three articles as well. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's inarguable that Picasso is one of the most important painters in world history. (A plausible argument could be made that he is the most important, though I'd probably argue for Giotto first and Michelangelo second.) After Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Guernica is his single most important painting. Given the nature of the History of painting article, it seems absolutely appropriate that both Guernica and Les Demoiselles d'Avignon appear in it. I would say the same of Western painting, though the text cloning is unfortunate. For more comprehensive educational value, by the time we get down to 20th century Western painting, a different choice of paintings might best serve our readers. Of course, that would call for an adjustment to the text.—DCGeist (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue the other way around: History of painting is a massive article that would benefit greatly from the application of WP:Summary style and pruning, and should probably only contain a small, carefully-selected set of free images. Non-free images should be moved down into the more specific articles: Guernica, for example, would go nicely in 20th century Western painting. --Carnildo (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Wikiproject Visual arts is discussing these issues about the overview articles mentioned. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Non_free_images. See also Talk:History_of_painting#Dealing_with_non-free_images. In the latter article the number of non-free images is just over half what it was. I suggest it is better to continue a detailed discussion at the Project and/or the specific article talk pages, as this one image should not be seen in isolation, but as part of an integrated coverage. Ty 01:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso is a giant of 20th century art, and Guernica along with Les Demoiselles d'Avignon and a few other of his works are among his most important masterpieces. The historical context and political impact of Guernica make it arguably Picasso's greatest achievement as a painter. It is essential to any survey or historical overview of painting which is why it appears in those three survey articles. In my opinion it is both crucial and relevant to all of those articles...Modernist (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the image has been drastically reduced. Appropriate FURs have been added to remaining instances. Detailed discussion about images in larger context of all non-free images in the remaining overview articles to continue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Non_free_images and Talk:History_of_painting#Dealing_with_non-free_images. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gaza flotilla raid images

Non-free images inquiry

There is ongoing discussion about the fair-use and neutrality aspects of using images in the Gaza flotilla raid article, specifically over some of the following images:

IDF copyright policy, along with FU policy, is here:

According to the law of copyright in Israel and pursuant to international treaties, copyright in the office's publications, including those provided by the service, belong to the IDF and the Ministry of Defense. These rights apply, inter alia, to text. Pictures, drawings, maps, audio tracts, video tracts, graphics and program applications (hereinafter: the protected material), unless stated explicitly that the copyright in the protected material belongs to another party.

User may make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under law. Such fair use includes quoting from the protected material in a reasonable manner.

When quoting from the protected material, User must attribute the source of the quotation, whether it is the office or a third party. User may not alter, modify or in any other fashion change the protected material, and may not do any other act which might diminish the value of the protected material in a manner which would cast aspersion on the creator of the protected material.

The copyright for the final image is not as clear. It is posted on an Israeli government site, but then appears to come from a third-party organization.

Would these images be usable?--Nosfartu (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean for you to cross post. And I wasn't trying to scold you with bureaucratic red tape by saying you posted to the wrong board. Because I don't think you did. I only directed you here if you felt the images needed review in light of NFCC. Anyway, what you wrote above doesn't to me seem like an inquiry. There is no reason to quote the copyright stipulations from the source. We are tagging the image as non-free, so.... what is your questions? Are you asking whether the images are actually non-free? Or are you asking if the members of this board think that NFCC is being applied properly or what? What is the issue? What do you think? Do you think any of WP:NFCC aren't met by any of those images? -Andrew c [talk] 02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of clarity. The copyright policy was given in case it would be informative to when and how the images could be used, but as you can probably tell I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policies. I am trying to understand whether copyright and NFCC policies are being applied properly, i.e. can the images be used as fair-use in article namespace (e.g. Gaza flotilla raid? From my own (limited) reading, it seems that at a minimum the resolutions might be too large (similar to the original work), that proper attributions may be required to be given (due to the copyright policy of one of the organizations), that the third image might be copyrighted by a separate organization with a different policy, etc. But I was hoping to get informed opinion. Thanks, --Nosfartu (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed the images or their use in the article in detail yet, so I can't address whether all of the NFCC requirements are being met, but as far as copyright attribution goes it's generally acceptable practice to list all of the information you have regarding the copyright holders (such as mentioning that book cover art copyright is believed to belong to either the publisher or cover artist) but it's not required to absolutely confirm the ownership. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first note that all three files are currently licensed as "historic images", as well as File:Weapons on Marmaris.jpg, which is incorrect as there are no comments on the photos (unless I'm missing something), just on the contents of the photos, the appropriate license escapes me at the moment though, unless it's just the generic one. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image has been released to the public by IDF Spokesperson's Unit. It is an image of unique historic significance and is not replaceable. Per the IDF Spokesperson's Unit terms of use, user is specifically allowed to make "fair use" of the protected material. Marokwitz (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything published has been released to the public, and we're always specifically allowed to make "fair use" of images and other copyrighted material, regardless of what is said by the copyright holder. I'm not sure which image you're referring to, but historic event != historic image. That doesn't mean it's not usable, just that it should use a different copyright license if there are only comments about the contents of the photo instead of the photo itself. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses this image itself. "The IDF released 20 videos of the incident.[97] One video shows how the first commandos to abseil down to the deck were attacked by a mob" Marokwitz (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just describing events. To use press agency photos , the photo must have historical significance beyond just documenting an event. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is one example. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that describes the video, not the event. The article has a full paragraph about the videos released by the IDF. This photo is a frame from the IDF video, the video itself is discussed in detail both in the article and dissected in depth by independent reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph that I assume you're referring to says "The IDF released 20 videos of the incident. One video shows ... Other videos show ... Another video, edited from the ship's surveillance footage, is described by the IDF as showing ... Another video allegedly shows ..." Everything else is about the content of the videos, not the video themselves. Like I said, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used, just needs a different copyright tag. Does {{Non-free video screenshot}} work for news video? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "describing the contents of the video" is the same as "describing the video", the contents are described as well as information on who took it, I really don't understand the distinction you are making. The subject of the paragraph is the videos, and not the events. In any case I added also the tag that you suggested, it is indeed both a historic image (as evidenced by the wide public discussion regarding the images which made them iconic to the conflict in many eyes), and a video screenshot . Marokwitz (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else take a look at whether File:Activistboatclash.jpg is allowable in the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid article? I removed it this morning and feel that its use in that article fails WP:NFCC#8 but User:Epeefleche disagrees so additional opinions are welcome. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at it and the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid article. First off, let me say that I haven't really been following the evolving discussion surrounding the Gaza flotilla raid, so please forgive me if I display my ignorance -- I'm certainly not going to attempt to examine subjects best discussed on the article's talk page, such as whether the presence or absence of this image puts undue weight on one side of the other of the legality of Israel's actions. I'll start off by saying that I think the use of this image could meet WP:NFCC if Epeefleche or someone else can track down a reliable source that points to features visible in this specific image in order to inform the source's legal arguments supporting Israel's use of force. With such a source, it probably wouldn't be hard to edit this section of the article to mention that source, its analysis of the image, its conclusions, and place the image next to the commentary. That being said, we don't generally insist an article have a reliable source that justifies why a particular non-free image is used so long as the section of the article in which the image appears contains critical commentary about the image itself (this is required by the non-free copyright tag and the fair-use rationale). As it currently stands I don't see that commentary in that section of the article (and given how much interest and controversy surround these events an attempt to shoehorn in some commentary without citing a reliable source probably wouldn't survive long). —RP88 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the big problem is WP:NFCC#8, which I'll quote: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Now let's look at the images:

  • File:Activistboatclash.jpg purports to show an activist beating an Israeli soldier with an iron bar. The israeli soldier is invisible in the image, as he is hidden behind the side of the deck. Nor is it clear from the image that the person is wielding an iron bar, or is even an activist.
  • File:Peace_activists_throwing_an_Israeli_soldier_over_board.jpg purports to show activists throwing an Israeli soldier off the top deck. The black splodge which is circled could be an Israeli soldier, or it could be an activist or even a particularly large sack of potatoes. The people gathered by the side of the upper deck could be throwing the black splodge off, or could be helping the black splodge back up.

Now most of the basic facts of the flotilla raid are not in dispute, and it is credible that the images do actually show what they purport to show. But here we are using other information that we know about the topic to increase our understanding of the images, which is exactly the reverse of what NFCC#8 demands for an allowed use of non-free media! We cannot say that the omission of these images would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic: we can always put the Israeli allegations in text and link to the videos from which these images were extracted, a solution which would be better in terms of reader understanding than simply displaying two freeze-frames. Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gaza-flotilla-boarded.jpg

I don't believe this qualifies as fair use. Specifically, the license which is applied to this image states that the image should be "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents". This is not what it is being used for. It is being used for a depiction of the events at Gaza flotilla raid. Sadly, I agree with the fair use rationale that it is likely irreplaceable, at least for right now, but that's not the only criterion. I really think NFCC #2 is being violated here, as this content is copyrighted by Al-Jazeera with an intent to draw viewers to their site/program. Our use of it can easily detract from its market value. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't realize there was already an open discussion. But at least this confirms some of my suspicions. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "Al-Jazeera with an intent to draw viewers to their site/program, " then it is not the case that " Our use of it can easily detract from its market value", but just the opposite: Drawing users to their site adds to the market value of their services. DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AP or Hürriyet image?

I just removed File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg from the article per WP:NFC#UUI #6 as it was sourced to the AP on the description page. It has alternatively been sourced to http://www.internethaber.com/israili-sevindiren-fotograflar-foto-galerisi-7818-p16.htm and Hürriyet. Does anyone here disagree with my rationale and/or know if Hürriyet is also a press agency which would disallow all of their photos? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with that photo is that we don't know who the author is: the original distributor seems to be the IHH, certainly not AP or Hürriyet (neither of whom had photographers on board). Physchim62 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so would the AP be hosting an image they didn't now hold the copyright to? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its not unheard of for AP to distribute unlicensed photos where the ultimate source is unknown or otherwise unlikely to sue. As a news agency they're given a great deal of latitude under US law to make fair use of newsworthy images (in the U.S. fair use can extend to commercial uses). —RP88 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your question about if Hürriyet is a press agency -- Hürriyet is an interesting case. They're a really major newspaper in Turkey and photos taken by Hürriyet's staff are distributed to many other media outlets in Turkey. However, their photos are almost exclusively distributed to a group of closely affiliated media outlets that are all owned by the same organization as owns Hürriyet. They're not really a press agency in same sense as AP or Agence France-Presse/Getty Images -- these organizations exist to sell photos to all interested parties; as far as I am aware Hürriyet doesn't have a similar mechanism for arbitrary 3rd parties to buy their images. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:NFC#UUI #6 in part exists due to AP's notoriously litigious nature -- AP once threatened to sue Google over conduct by Google that most disinterested parties considered to be fair use, but despite Google's deep pockets Google backed down and agreed to pay AP. So while it's not really fair, it's been my observation that for practical reasons Wikipedia tends to give a bit more deference to big organizations with legal muscle in the US (since WIkipedia's servers are located in the US). —RP88 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:ScarfacePacino.jpg

Nonfree image previously used only as general illustration for film castlist section. The article includes no text relating to the image, the scene it is take from, or the visual appearance of Pacino in the film, indicating not only failure to meet WP's NFCC criteria, but making the "fair use" status of the image uncertain. Several different nonfree images are used to illustrate the relevant character article, but not this one. Removal of image from article has been disputed with no explanation other than "reasonable FU". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is right that it is not just an iconic image of the film but it goes down as one of the iconic images of cinema of all time. Using the image for plot may not meet wikipedias' somewhat warped fair use guidelines but using it for critical commentary, discussion of drugs below will.... Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Flipside photos

File:Effigi2BurningFlipside2008.jpg

Image is marked with CC-SA-BY-3.0 license, but image comes from non-free event with restrictions on commericial reuse. See <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2008.pdf> on page 13. "Burning Flipside is a private event. The commercial use of photographs, video, film or any other medium taken at Burning Flipside is prohibited without written permission of Austin Artistic Reconstruction, LLC." Spectre9 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Austin Artistic Deconstruction has no legal authority to control commercial use of photographs taken at their event, unless they own the photographs. If a photographer violated the terms of a contract with Austin Artistic Deconstruction, that's between the photographer and Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Wikipedia's use of the photograph is not subject to any such contract. Kaldari (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the photograph is of a sculpture, produced with funding from Austin Artistic Reconstruction. Do your research on D.A.F.T. As the artwork is a commissioned work with funding from the admission price to the event. Sculpture even burning sculpture is protected by copyright and you need permission of artist or non-free-use rationale. 70.123.121.92 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a valid argument since there is no freedom of panorama in the US for sculpture. Kaldari (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BFMonkey.jpg

non-commercial use restricted at private event per Austin Artistic Deconstruction, LLC. see <http://web.archive.org/web/20010908175028/www.burnaustin.org/history/archive/flipside99/survivalGuide.html>, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2007.pdf, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2008.pdf> Spectre9 (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This argument incorrectly applies the published policies regarding photography at Flipside. The policy in effect at the time the photo was made is the first citation, the other cites are for policies that were created 'after' this photo was made. Looking at the first policy, note that it speaks to photos of people and images on individuals, none of which are visible in this photo. SteveHopson (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Austin Artistic Deconstruction has no legal authority to control commercial use of photographs taken at their event, unless they own the photographs. If a photographer violated the terms of a contract with Austin Artistic Deconstruction, that's between the photographer and Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Wikipedia's use of the photograph is not subject to any such contract. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BFRocket.JPG

license is wrong, as non-commercial use restricted at private event per Austin Artistic Deconstruction, LLC. see <http://web.archive.org/web/20010908175028/www.burnaustin.org/history/archive/flipside99/survivalGuide.html>, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2007.pdf, <http://www.burningflipside.com/survivalguide2008.pdf> Spectre9 (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Austin Artistic Deconstruction has no legal authority to control commercial use of photographs taken at their event, unless they own the photographs. If a photographer violated the terms of a contract with Austin Artistic Deconstruction, that's between the photographer and Austin Artistic Deconstruction. Wikipedia's use of the photograph is not subject to any such contract. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after some research, I think I have a coherent opinion on these. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States where Burning Flipside is held, and so the photographs are derivative works of the sculptures. The contract between attendees and Austin Artistic Deconstruction (AAD) seems fairly irrelevant to the considerations here, since the existence of these photos demonstrates that people are willing and able to violate that rule. As far as I have been able to tell, while the effigies are funded by AAD (asserted above by the IP) and constructed by DaFT, the actual designs (proposals) are submitted by what appear to be independent artists [3] [4]. Even if the artwork is commisioned (as also asserted by the IP), that is no guarantee that the copyright is transferred, so it seems to me that it would be possible for the designer of the sculptures (i.e., copyright holder) to take a picture and release it here freely, making these arguably fail WP:NFCC#1. At the very least these should be retagged as non-free since we can't assume that the photographers are the copyright holders. Anybody want to point out where/if I've gone wrong? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per lack of response all have been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 11. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PicassoGuernica.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The painting Guernica is obviously one of the most significant in Picasso's oeuvre. But it is also copyrighted, and thus we are compelled by the non-free content criteria to limit its use in the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, this painting seems to be an unusually popular choice for illustrating various concepts outside the context of critical commentary. It was recently removed from the posttraumatic stress disorder article, for instance. However, it remains present in several articles which may be problematic.

As of this writing, the article appears in the following articles:

  • History of painting, Western painting, 20th century Western painting
    • The usage in all three of these articles is essentially identical. Guernica is displayed in a gallery, even though non-free galleries are strongly frowned upon, as I recall. On the bright side, the articles do each contain (the same) extensive discussion of the image. I think these uses are probably okay ultimately; even though it's used in a gallery, that seems to be merely a presentation issue in these cases.
  • Pablo Picasso
    • Fine, obviously.
  • Biscay
    • Highly questionable. First and most importantly, there is no fair-use rationale for this article on the description page. Second, the article in question does not even mention the painting in its text; the reference in the caption is brief and not particularly illuminating. It appears to be being used only for illustration here.
  • Condor Legion
    • Again, no fair-use rationale. The article mentions the painting only in passing and we need not display the image to convey necessary information.
  • User:Cretanforever
    • This was just added earlier today; I've removed it as non-free images aren't allowed in userspace.
  • The Third of May 1808
    • The article does say that Guernica was influenced by The Third of May 1808, but doesn't go into any detail and does not require the image to be close at hand for readers' understanding.
  • Bella No. 2
    • No fair-use rationale. The article contains unreferenced claim that Guernica may have been inspired by Bella No. 2. No support for this is included, referenced or otherwise, making the inclusion of the copyrighted work questionable at best.
  • Guernica (painting)
    • Although not listed under "File links" on the description page, obviously this image is used in the painting's article's infobox. Obviously the most permissible use of this image possible.

In short, I would recommend that this image be removed from all pages except History of painting, Western painting, 20th century Western painting, Guernica (painting), and Pablo Picasso.

-- Powers T 13:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationales all appear to be the same, and none are unique or tailored to the specific use. It's like when I see someone using a FUR tempalte, and adding "educational use" for the purpose. If you believe fair use rationales can be written for all those uses, then please do so. But as it stands, I don't consider any of the FUR valid, as the purpose has not been adequately addressed. WP:FURG -Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to think that the rationale for the article about the painting might be sufficient, just inherently as the article about the painting. But otherwise I completely agree. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by the barest minimum you could say that the FUR for the article about the painting is acceptable. The other clones are blatantly not. Andrew, you're right, the FUR is in desperately bad shape. Powers, I agree with all of your analysis except, to some degree, the one concerning The Third of May 1808. As a matter of art history, the relationship between it and Guernica is a very important one, the visual comparison of the paintings is of high educational value, and the images should be in the same article to maximize readers' understanding. That said, the article can and should go into more detail about the relationship between the pictures. As for Bella No. 2, the entire purported connection between it and Guernica appears to be OR. I see Guernica was added to the article by an IP a few months ago without explanation, discussion, etc. It should be expeditiously removed.—DCGeist (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am essentially a layman when it comes to art history and analysis, but I think that only highlights the insufficiency of the article as it stands. A layman ought to be able to tell from reading the text how important an image is to understanding. Or, more to the point, by reading the fair-use rationale. Powers T 00:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. My phrasing above was a little loose. I didn't disagree at all with your analysis of the current situation with The Third of May 1808. Rather I wanted to raise a point relating to the consequences of your analysis. I believe Guernica does merit a place, per our policy, in the article, but, indeed, both article and rationale must be stronger (in the case of the rationale, much stronger) for that place to be secured.—DCGeist (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image of Guernica from Bella No. 2, which I have marked for speedy deletion as an obvious and complete hoax (though a clever, amusing one).—DCGeist (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least for now I've removed the image from all articles except for those proposed by LtPowers. I am in agreement that it could fit into The Third of May 1808, with the current explanation of the relationship amounting to a single sentence I believe more article work is required before that use passes WP:NFCC#8. I will see what I can do about the FURs for the remaining article usage later. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as the Legacy section of The Third of May 1808 now has two relevant images—one of which is free, the other of which has both a good FUR and solid treatment in the article—there's no need to restore Guernica to it, which would clutter the section.—DCGeist (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also previous discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_4#Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg. Ty 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your input! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt to provide legitimate fair use rationales for the pages on which it now appears. I make no pretense to being familiar with the history of art or the significance of this work, so I'd appreciate it if someone would review my changes. I'm largely happy with the rationale I wrote for Guernica (painting), and Pablo Picasso. The rationale I wrote for 20th century Western painting might be acceptable, but the rationales for Western painting and History of painting are essentially clones of the rationale for 20th century Western painting. However, since the usage in all three of these articles is essentially identical (as noted by Powers), perhaps largely identical fair use rationales for these three articles is also OK. —RP88 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to me. The only possible lingering issue I see is if someone remains of the opinion voiced by CBM in the previous discussion mentioned above that "The painting should not appear in more than one of these: Western painting, History_of_painting, Art. Using it in all three ignores the "minimal use" principle. Just because a painting is well known cannot justify using it in every overview article." (now applying to the three "cloned" FURs you just mentioned). I don't personally feel that WP:NFCC#3a limits the number of articles, however, just the number of images per article, so as I said, it looks good to me. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmm... I'm unsure about my opinion of NFCC#3a here, because I see WP:NFC#UUI #5 which states "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)", so maybe it does need removed from more articles? If there's anyone else who thinks it needs to be trimmed from more articles, speak up, otherwise I'll close this discussion soon as it's at least mostly resolved. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet more information: at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive196#Overused non-free images Masem points out that the wording for 3a used to be "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole" (emphasis added), but it was removed as being redundant. So I guess that changes my earlier opinion. Of the three articles with cloned rationales (20th century Western painting, Western painting and History of painting), does anyone have an opinion as to which use seems most pertinent? To make things even more fun, the text accompanying the image appears to be cloned in all three articles as well. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's inarguable that Picasso is one of the most important painters in world history. (A plausible argument could be made that he is the most important, though I'd probably argue for Giotto first and Michelangelo second.) After Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Guernica is his single most important painting. Given the nature of the History of painting article, it seems absolutely appropriate that both Guernica and Les Demoiselles d'Avignon appear in it. I would say the same of Western painting, though the text cloning is unfortunate. For more comprehensive educational value, by the time we get down to 20th century Western painting, a different choice of paintings might best serve our readers. Of course, that would call for an adjustment to the text.—DCGeist (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue the other way around: History of painting is a massive article that would benefit greatly from the application of WP:Summary style and pruning, and should probably only contain a small, carefully-selected set of free images. Non-free images should be moved down into the more specific articles: Guernica, for example, would go nicely in 20th century Western painting. --Carnildo (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Wikiproject Visual arts is discussing these issues about the overview articles mentioned. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Non_free_images. See also Talk:History_of_painting#Dealing_with_non-free_images. In the latter article the number of non-free images is just over half what it was. I suggest it is better to continue a detailed discussion at the Project and/or the specific article talk pages, as this one image should not be seen in isolation, but as part of an integrated coverage. Ty 01:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso is a giant of 20th century art, and Guernica along with Les Demoiselles d'Avignon and a few other of his works are among his most important masterpieces. The historical context and political impact of Guernica make it arguably Picasso's greatest achievement as a painter. It is essential to any survey or historical overview of painting which is why it appears in those three survey articles. In my opinion it is both crucial and relevant to all of those articles...Modernist (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the image has been drastically reduced. Appropriate FURs have been added to remaining instances. Detailed discussion about images in larger context of all non-free images in the remaining overview articles to continue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Non_free_images and Talk:History_of_painting#Dealing_with_non-free_images. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gaza flotilla raid images

Non-free images inquiry

There is ongoing discussion about the fair-use and neutrality aspects of using images in the Gaza flotilla raid article, specifically over some of the following images:

IDF copyright policy, along with FU policy, is here:

According to the law of copyright in Israel and pursuant to international treaties, copyright in the office's publications, including those provided by the service, belong to the IDF and the Ministry of Defense. These rights apply, inter alia, to text. Pictures, drawings, maps, audio tracts, video tracts, graphics and program applications (hereinafter: the protected material), unless stated explicitly that the copyright in the protected material belongs to another party.

User may make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under law. Such fair use includes quoting from the protected material in a reasonable manner.

When quoting from the protected material, User must attribute the source of the quotation, whether it is the office or a third party. User may not alter, modify or in any other fashion change the protected material, and may not do any other act which might diminish the value of the protected material in a manner which would cast aspersion on the creator of the protected material.

The copyright for the final image is not as clear. It is posted on an Israeli government site, but then appears to come from a third-party organization.

Would these images be usable?--Nosfartu (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean for you to cross post. And I wasn't trying to scold you with bureaucratic red tape by saying you posted to the wrong board. Because I don't think you did. I only directed you here if you felt the images needed review in light of NFCC. Anyway, what you wrote above doesn't to me seem like an inquiry. There is no reason to quote the copyright stipulations from the source. We are tagging the image as non-free, so.... what is your questions? Are you asking whether the images are actually non-free? Or are you asking if the members of this board think that NFCC is being applied properly or what? What is the issue? What do you think? Do you think any of WP:NFCC aren't met by any of those images? -Andrew c [talk] 02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of clarity. The copyright policy was given in case it would be informative to when and how the images could be used, but as you can probably tell I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policies. I am trying to understand whether copyright and NFCC policies are being applied properly, i.e. can the images be used as fair-use in article namespace (e.g. Gaza flotilla raid? From my own (limited) reading, it seems that at a minimum the resolutions might be too large (similar to the original work), that proper attributions may be required to be given (due to the copyright policy of one of the organizations), that the third image might be copyrighted by a separate organization with a different policy, etc. But I was hoping to get informed opinion. Thanks, --Nosfartu (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed the images or their use in the article in detail yet, so I can't address whether all of the NFCC requirements are being met, but as far as copyright attribution goes it's generally acceptable practice to list all of the information you have regarding the copyright holders (such as mentioning that book cover art copyright is believed to belong to either the publisher or cover artist) but it's not required to absolutely confirm the ownership. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first note that all three files are currently licensed as "historic images", as well as File:Weapons on Marmaris.jpg, which is incorrect as there are no comments on the photos (unless I'm missing something), just on the contents of the photos, the appropriate license escapes me at the moment though, unless it's just the generic one. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image has been released to the public by IDF Spokesperson's Unit. It is an image of unique historic significance and is not replaceable. Per the IDF Spokesperson's Unit terms of use, user is specifically allowed to make "fair use" of the protected material. Marokwitz (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything published has been released to the public, and we're always specifically allowed to make "fair use" of images and other copyrighted material, regardless of what is said by the copyright holder. I'm not sure which image you're referring to, but historic event != historic image. That doesn't mean it's not usable, just that it should use a different copyright license if there are only comments about the contents of the photo instead of the photo itself. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses this image itself. "The IDF released 20 videos of the incident.[97] One video shows how the first commandos to abseil down to the deck were attacked by a mob" Marokwitz (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just describing events. To use press agency photos , the photo must have historical significance beyond just documenting an event. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is one example. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that describes the video, not the event. The article has a full paragraph about the videos released by the IDF. This photo is a frame from the IDF video, the video itself is discussed in detail both in the article and dissected in depth by independent reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph that I assume you're referring to says "The IDF released 20 videos of the incident. One video shows ... Other videos show ... Another video, edited from the ship's surveillance footage, is described by the IDF as showing ... Another video allegedly shows ..." Everything else is about the content of the videos, not the video themselves. Like I said, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used, just needs a different copyright tag. Does {{Non-free video screenshot}} work for news video? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "describing the contents of the video" is the same as "describing the video", the contents are described as well as information on who took it, I really don't understand the distinction you are making. The subject of the paragraph is the videos, and not the events. In any case I added also the tag that you suggested, it is indeed both a historic image (as evidenced by the wide public discussion regarding the images which made them iconic to the conflict in many eyes), and a video screenshot . Marokwitz (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else take a look at whether File:Activistboatclash.jpg is allowable in the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid article? I removed it this morning and feel that its use in that article fails WP:NFCC#8 but User:Epeefleche disagrees so additional opinions are welcome. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at it and the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid article. First off, let me say that I haven't really been following the evolving discussion surrounding the Gaza flotilla raid, so please forgive me if I display my ignorance -- I'm certainly not going to attempt to examine subjects best discussed on the article's talk page, such as whether the presence or absence of this image puts undue weight on one side of the other of the legality of Israel's actions. I'll start off by saying that I think the use of this image could meet WP:NFCC if Epeefleche or someone else can track down a reliable source that points to features visible in this specific image in order to inform the source's legal arguments supporting Israel's use of force. With such a source, it probably wouldn't be hard to edit this section of the article to mention that source, its analysis of the image, its conclusions, and place the image next to the commentary. That being said, we don't generally insist an article have a reliable source that justifies why a particular non-free image is used so long as the section of the article in which the image appears contains critical commentary about the image itself (this is required by the non-free copyright tag and the fair-use rationale). As it currently stands I don't see that commentary in that section of the article (and given how much interest and controversy surround these events an attempt to shoehorn in some commentary without citing a reliable source probably wouldn't survive long). —RP88 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the big problem is WP:NFCC#8, which I'll quote: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Now let's look at the images:

  • File:Activistboatclash.jpg purports to show an activist beating an Israeli soldier with an iron bar. The israeli soldier is invisible in the image, as he is hidden behind the side of the deck. Nor is it clear from the image that the person is wielding an iron bar, or is even an activist.
  • File:Peace_activists_throwing_an_Israeli_soldier_over_board.jpg purports to show activists throwing an Israeli soldier off the top deck. The black splodge which is circled could be an Israeli soldier, or it could be an activist or even a particularly large sack of potatoes. The people gathered by the side of the upper deck could be throwing the black splodge off, or could be helping the black splodge back up.

Now most of the basic facts of the flotilla raid are not in dispute, and it is credible that the images do actually show what they purport to show. But here we are using other information that we know about the topic to increase our understanding of the images, which is exactly the reverse of what NFCC#8 demands for an allowed use of non-free media! We cannot say that the omission of these images would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic: we can always put the Israeli allegations in text and link to the videos from which these images were extracted, a solution which would be better in terms of reader understanding than simply displaying two freeze-frames. Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gaza-flotilla-boarded.jpg

I don't believe this qualifies as fair use. Specifically, the license which is applied to this image states that the image should be "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents". This is not what it is being used for. It is being used for a depiction of the events at Gaza flotilla raid. Sadly, I agree with the fair use rationale that it is likely irreplaceable, at least for right now, but that's not the only criterion. I really think NFCC #2 is being violated here, as this content is copyrighted by Al-Jazeera with an intent to draw viewers to their site/program. Our use of it can easily detract from its market value. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't realize there was already an open discussion. But at least this confirms some of my suspicions. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "Al-Jazeera with an intent to draw viewers to their site/program, " then it is not the case that " Our use of it can easily detract from its market value", but just the opposite: Drawing users to their site adds to the market value of their services. DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AP or Hürriyet image?

I just removed File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg from the article per WP:NFC#UUI #6 as it was sourced to the AP on the description page. It has alternatively been sourced to http://www.internethaber.com/israili-sevindiren-fotograflar-foto-galerisi-7818-p16.htm and Hürriyet. Does anyone here disagree with my rationale and/or know if Hürriyet is also a press agency which would disallow all of their photos? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with that photo is that we don't know who the author is: the original distributor seems to be the IHH, certainly not AP or Hürriyet (neither of whom had photographers on board). Physchim62 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so would the AP be hosting an image they didn't now hold the copyright to? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its not unheard of for AP to distribute unlicensed photos where the ultimate source is unknown or otherwise unlikely to sue. As a news agency they're given a great deal of latitude under US law to make fair use of newsworthy images (in the U.S. fair use can extend to commercial uses). —RP88 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your question about if Hürriyet is a press agency -- Hürriyet is an interesting case. They're a really major newspaper in Turkey and photos taken by Hürriyet's staff are distributed to many other media outlets in Turkey. However, their photos are almost exclusively distributed to a group of closely affiliated media outlets that are all owned by the same organization as owns Hürriyet. They're not really a press agency in same sense as AP or Agence France-Presse/Getty Images -- these organizations exist to sell photos to all interested parties; as far as I am aware Hürriyet doesn't have a similar mechanism for arbitrary 3rd parties to buy their images. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:NFC#UUI #6 in part exists due to AP's notoriously litigious nature -- AP once threatened to sue Google over conduct by Google that most disinterested parties considered to be fair use, but despite Google's deep pockets Google backed down and agreed to pay AP. So while it's not really fair, it's been my observation that for practical reasons Wikipedia tends to give a bit more deference to big organizations with legal muscle in the US (since WIkipedia's servers are located in the US). —RP88 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review&oldid=368589689"