File talk:Longewala.jpg

Image:Longewala.jpg - Two conflicting licenses, I don't believe the uploader knows what license (if any) it is released under. --Hetar 15:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the user has changed the licensing. Source certainly is verfiable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.159.185.5 (talk • contribs) .

CommentSource certainly is verfiable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.159.185.5 (talk • contribs) .

It’s not about the source. By which fair use criteria does the image qualify? (Strikeout removed and tag restored, by the way, until this is really cleared up.) — xyzzy_n 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Fair Use rationale provided certainly qualifies. I would say that is fair-use image ~~ranam~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.207.112.194 (talk • contribs) .

The fair use rationale provided certainly qualifies as a very strong indication that whoever wrote the rationale had not previously read and understood WP:FU. That the image is useful, unique or otherwise desirable does not, per se, enable its use under United States copyright law (or, for that matter, equivalent laws in many other places) and no other reason why fair use would apply is given. —xyzzy _n 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According preceding comment by user xyzzy, Heading titled General of WP:FU article states the following: Briefly, these indicate that 1. The use must not attempt to "supersede the objects" of the original but rather be educational or critical. 2. The less of the original that is used in relation to the whole the more likely that use is fair, though the importance of the specific portion is also considered (as the quoting the most important part may attempt to "supersede" the original). 3. The use must not infringe on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work for instance by acting as a direct market substitute for the original work though not through criticism or parody.

The image Image:Longewala.jpg seems to me to attempt to be descriptive and educational with regards to the object of the original (i.e, attempt to desribe a.The impact of the Indian Air Force's operations on the Pakistani Armoured thrust in the Longewala Sector during the Indo-Pak War of 1971, b. That these actions were instrumental in preventing the same column in achieveing it's objectives, and c. That the force under consideration was soundly and resolutely defeated by the Indian Air Force as a paricipant in the Battle of Longewala. The image does not attempt to supercede the object of the image. It certainly does not infringe on the copyright owner's (Indian Air Force's) ability to exploit his original work by acting either as a direct market substitute for the original work or through criticism or parody.

I believe that qualifies as Fair Use, other opinions welcome.- ranam.

See counterexamples 4, 5. —xyzzy_n 15:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the preceding comment re: see counterexamples by user xyzzy, the section states the following: Counterexamples

Some people find it easier to understand the concept of fair use from what is not fair use. Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use:

1.An article containing one or more unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source. 2.An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses. 3.A detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, used in an article about the region depicted. The only context in which this might be fair use is if the map itself was a topic of a passage in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory might be fair use. 4.A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war. (However, because of its iconic status, it is presumably Fair Use where we have a small image of Picasso's Guernica in the article Bombing of Guernica.) 5.A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles. 6.An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate the article (or an article section) whose topic is the card itself; see the Honus Wagner article. 7.An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply. An image found on the Internet whose original source is unknown and that happens to contain the subject.

The image itself is certainly iconic, see [1], and also for information, photos taken during thie same PR recce mission showing the same tank tracks adorn the VIP entrance at Vayu Bhavan (IAF House), New Delhi. The image is certainly descriptive of the article in question, I don't see why this is getting so drawn out. By xyzzy's argument, no photograph from this mission would qualify as fair use because he disagrees. I think this is unfair.-ranam

I agree with the arguments made by ranam as to why this image qualifies as fair use. -shreyam

If the image is iconic, you should be able to find better evidence than a single post in a forum. —xyzzy_n 11:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [2], also [3]captures the same object under consideration. This is not a free image. Also, xyzzy previous comment re:counterexamples counterexamples 4, and 5 does not hold ground since the image: Longewala.jpg is not a work of art. It's purpose was to provide photographic evidence of the extent and effect of the IAF's assault on Pakistani armour in the Longewala sector. It is certainly used in the original context. I think xyzzy is making a drawn out but ultimately baseless argument. Is this an effort trying to censor this image??? Besides you certainly have the opinion of two people agreeing that this image satisfies the fair use doctrine. The opinion of one person seems to be holding this image hostage.-shreyam

The image is a work in the sense of copyright law. Whether it is art in the narrow sense is irrelevant here. By the way, two people? Really? With the same IP signing for both? —xyzzy_n 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same IP address because the users accessing the page from the same IP portal. Anyways, I agree with the Fair Use rationale argument that ranam has made. It certainly qualifies as fair use, I'd say.N_Watson

…User’s first edit, account created today. —xyzzy_n 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being???