Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 1234439070 by Jason211pacem (talk)
No edit summary
Line 304: Line 304:


*'''Keep''', given the significant coverage of the photograph. But I agree that we must replace the photograph when a free image available. [[User:Mmnashrullah|Mmnashrullah]] ([[User talk:Mmnashrullah|talk]]) 10:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', given the significant coverage of the photograph. But I agree that we must replace the photograph when a free image available. [[User:Mmnashrullah|Mmnashrullah]] ([[User talk:Mmnashrullah|talk]]) 10:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Strong Keep''' Since no one on the Keep side has offered more persuasive reasons than "common use" or "historical event", I find myself, as a law student, obliged to give some, though I confess that my reasons may rather be more like "legal policy" instead of "original text". I also invite @[[User:BluePenguin18|BluePenguin18]] to join the discussion here so that we can better address this case.
:BluePenguin18 has mentioned that the photo here falls undoubtedly under the protection of US copyright law, which I won't oppose. Here I'll rather refer to a German case that the Wiki community has lost in a row of appeals (BGH, 20.12.2018 - I ZR 104/17, Museumsfotos): while the artworks in the museum were all in public domain, the German court found the photos on Wiki infringing, relying on the photographer’s neighboring right (no copyright for “Lichtbilder” there), as well as the museum’s land right along with standard form contract ("Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen"). Two inspirations: first, even without copyright, monopoly on info may still occur through other means; second, throughout and even after the whole legal process Wikimedia has been a staunch endorser of free use. <ref>https://diff.wikimedia.org/2015/11/23/lawsuit-public-domain-art/</ref>. For us Wikipedians, fair use should never be a compliance requirement which hinders our free expression. Rather we have a long history of “rebel”.
:You may argue that here we’re talking about a newly created picture, not something in the public domain, and the two cases must be distinguished. Fine. But from the outset of the modern interpretation of fair use doctrine (since Campbell) there has not been a consensus that it is only a defense for customers who accidentally and “harmlessly” takes a free riding. Rather, many scholars have seen fair use as per se shaping the limits of copyright and hence encouraging positive secondary uses, even if the use is at odds with the original author’s potential commercial plan. (See for example, “Fair Use: An Affirmative Defense?” by Lydia Pallas Loren, 2015.)
:Among the four factors of fair use, Factor 4, i.e. market incentives, has often been seen as significantly, if not decisively, important. Yet few, if not none, has talked about it here. We need to recognize that Evan Vucci, as an employee of AP and already prize-winning photographer, enjoys much more economic benefits from elsewhere than from a petty license on Wiki. And due to the news nature of the photo he may expect more financial interests from the next Pulitzer Prize rather than from broad online licensing. More importantly, after the news he HAS POSTED THE PHOTO ON THE X PLATFORM so that anyone from Elon Musk to a nobody can freely cite it. Did he just post a low-quality copy of the photo there so that he can price discriminate on different sites? Nope. And he must be aware that the photos online does not harm his capacity to license other famous magazines and papers.
:Conclusion, even if Vucci does really want more profits from Wiki, that doesn’t mean we should give in first. Just wait for him to DMCA us! -- [[User:Jason211pacem|Jason211pacem]] ([[User talk:Jason211pacem|talk]]) 10:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


====[[:File:Deir Suryan mural.jpeg]]====
====[[:File:Deir Suryan mural.jpeg]]====

Revision as of 10:43, 14 July 2024

< July 13
July 15 >

July 14

File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp

File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bremps (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unfortunately I don't think that this file can be justified as fair use. The photo is not strictly necessary to understand the subject of the article, and the photo itself is never discussed in the article. If the article were about the photograph itself it would be justifiable, but this is not the case. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the image very clearly articulates information clear than any word can. It also adequately summarizes the events of the shooting, with the bloody trump being whisked away. The subject of the image, the assassination attempt against trump, is the entire subject of the article. Scu ba (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Showing Evan Vucci's copyrighted image in a cropped and low-resolution format does not satisfy WP:NFCC#2 because the original image's market role is replaced by any unlicensed edit that still retains the photographer's unique capture of Trump's bloodied face in front of the US flag. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AP is government funded, he is apart of AP Gonzafer001 (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AP is not a government organization. They are a not-for-profit organization. That means that the public domain exemption does not apply. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a historical image. This is similar to Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Raising the Flag at Ground Zero. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LuxembourgLover: There's a fundamental difference in the situations. Those "raising the flag" pages are about the photographs in question, so the photographs are necessary to better understand the article. There is no page about "Evan Vucci's photograph of Donald Trump". Di (they-them) (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wholly fanciful argument that does not jibe with WP:NFCC. It is beyond laughable to think you can declare something "historical" mere hours after the fact. Zaathras (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these examples are compelling. The former is in the public domain and the latter is only used in articles discussing the photo itself, rather than the articles on the September 11 attacks or New York City's recovery. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a historical image. This was the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. You might not consider it history because it happened a couple of hours ago, but everything was "mere hours" ago at some point. USA1855 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. There have been over 20 in 40 years. Hyperbole is not a reason to keep a non-free image. Zaathras (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His argument is indeed flawed in its wording, but, @Zaathras , I do want to hear when (at least) two people were killed and when something actually hit a President. Please do cite when something other than a plot happened. Not an actual attempt. Something actually serious, like this. BarntToust (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would that contribute to discussing if the image is fair use or not. (If you want the list, read List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LuxembourgLover (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-justified in its description (no low-resolution free-use images of this event exist) and the image captures the unparalleled significance of the moment very fittingly for the article. The image from the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald comes to mind as a good analogy -- alternatives may exist, but the historic angle and context of that one image is undeniable. HandIsNotNookls (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This image is more historically important than many of the other images I see listed with "Non-free historic image". In addition, the spontaneous reaction was not staged, so the photographer has very little copyright interest in the photograph. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, the existence of other copyright violations is not an argument for further wrongdoing. It is an impetus to propose deletion of those rule-breakers. Second, photographers are not denied a copyright interest in their creations simply because the results were spontaneous. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • BluePenguin18 🐧: No, I think those are justified; it is just that this is more justified than those cases. I presume you haven't read the law? Photography, at its course, is mechanical, not creative; so, for a photograph to be copyrighted, some creative work—known as "authorship"—must occur before the photograph is taken. The main appeal of this photograph—most of what strikes the viewer as copyrightable—owes its origin not to the photographer's choices of angle, camera settings, &c., but to the staging of the rally podium and Trump's action in raising his fist. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Speaking as a law student, this is incorrect. This image qualifies for copyright protection because it is fixed to the medium of a photograph, authored by the human Evan Vucci, is in a copyrightable subject matter of a pictoral work, and showcases originality in its presentation (US Copyright Office). Accepting that the image is under copyright, US law makes no free use exception on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • BluePenguin18 🐧: You have misunderstood my statement. You have also not explained the basis of your belief that the work has copyrightable subject matter, or the extent of that protection. That is what my response was addressing. As to that hyper-link, I have already read it, and have read more particularly court cases which address the topic. My comment on "appeal" was directed to originality—much of what could be identified as "original" in the image, its "appeal," does not originate in the photographer's creative processes and cannot thereby be attributed to him through the copyright law.~ TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That US Copyright Office document links to a glossary noting that Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) recognized that photographs qualify as a copyrightable subject matter. If you are truly aware of any court cases that limit copyright protection on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator, please cite them. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the image seems to have potential for commercial use & can easily be replaced by a CC image (once one is taken/found). The photograph may be historically relevant, but fair use on Wikipedia seems to be a bit of a stretch. Jan-Janko (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One does not need to see an image like this (that is now being used to show "he's a tough guy" on social media) to understand the subject matter. Non-free media of various kinds can be used instead, or something may be released down the road Zaathras (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to ask, in the context of a shooting, is a strong-looking image bad or unnecessary? No. Also, I'm sure analysis of the image probably will happen, but "they are using it" isn't a good argument imo. BarntToust (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "non-free media"? Marcus Markup (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially the image of the event. If I were asked to choose an image to summarize the event, I'd choose this. It doesn't matter what some people on social media are using it for. This image certainly does help in understanding the event. It shows Trump's shot ear and him being escorted. Coulomb1 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's an amazing photograph, artistically speaking (and kudos to the photographer), but it's still Evan Vucci's copyrighted image. As such, unless we can get a better, non-copyrighted image, I don't think we can keep it, per BluePenguin18 and Di. Better to not have a photograph. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails #1 in that a free image depicting the event could easily be made available at any point soon. Fails #2 in that it's clearly a popular image of a current event and the wire photographer will be selling it to newspapers around the world for Sunday/Monday papers. Fails #5 and #8 in not adding to encyclopedic understanding of the event as of present. Also fails #8 if the premise is that it's an historic image: the event happened like two hours ago and we can't be certain what happened. Significance cannot possibly have been established. Kingsif (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Copyrighted image — 48JCL 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...that might have merits for use? Not seeing any complex argument from 48JCL here. BarntToust (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. President Trump lives! KEMBMB61 (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to me like a unique photo of a historic event, which happened over the course of a couple minutes, and of which it is now permanently possible to find a replacement photo. Like, how are we supposed to go take a freely licensed replacement photo of an assassination attempt, send a second assassin? I have looked over WP:NFCC and I don't really see anything to indicate this is an unacceptable piccy. If there really is something in there specifically proscribing this, let me know and I will change to delete, but for now I am in favor of keeping it. jp×g🗯️ 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the article now says: An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards. Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history". Another image, as reported by Axios, taken by Anna Moneymaker, was spread by his prominent political allies as a rallying symbol."
This seems pretty straightforwardly within the remit of WP:NFCC. jp×g🗯️ 02:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For which image? The Gucci one or the Moneymaker one? The Daily Beast has a different angle captured by Brendan McDermid. I think it's far too early to tell which, if any, of these are historic enough to meet WP:NFC#CS. Adabow (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we were using it by that commentary. That does not, however, justify its current use as an infobox image. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There were tens of thousands of people at the rally, so it is possible, even likely, that a free equivalent exists or could be created (fails NFCC 1). A very recent event and us hosting this doesn't respect the commercial value of the image (fails NFCC 2). I also don't think it meets NFCC 8 (contextual significance) in the way that it's currently being used (infobox, describing Secret Service escorting Trump away). Adabow (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a unique photo of a historical event, as recognized by Politico and the The Daily Beast [1], and the fist in air was highlighted by virtually every media organization, though they didn't specifically mention the photo. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNN used the image as the main one in a gallery article [2]. New York Post included the image in a series of them taken by AP, highlighted in the article [3].
Now recognized by Axios. [4] Personisinsterest (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is a historic image. Please, quit with the "what ifs", we're not just trying to illustrate the article with random photos that happen to maybe be taken, maybe be uploaded feely, maybe exist, probably not be as good as this. This has merit in the sense of being a sort of iconic photo. see Personisinsterest and their argument for it. it's unique. BarntToust (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picture posted by Don Jr [5], noted by many orgs. [6][7][8] and more. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your citations to various news sources reporting on the photo's significance would only justify its use on an article about the photo itself. Under Wikipedia's non-free use policy, this copyrighted image cannot be used simply to illustrate the broader event. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid argument to keep. We are discussing the fair use of the image. Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Historic is quite a stretch, as this event happened only a few hours ago. Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to go out on a limb here and say that, contrariwise, some guy shooting the President of the United States is an exceptionally notable phenomenon that does not in fact happen very often. I mean, I don't know, maybe in 2027 they will start doing it every ten days, and that'll be the new political tradition, but for the last few hundred years this has not been the general practice. jp×g🗯️ 01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim is not that the event is not historic (obviously it is, we have an entire article about it). To meet the criteria for non-free content, the image must not be possible to be replaced by free content - i.e. if the image itself was the topic of an article. Adabow (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that the article now says: An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards. Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history". Another image, as reported by Axios, taken by Anna Moneymaker, was spread by his prominent political allies as a rallying symbol." jp×g🗯️ 02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This actually proves others' points relating to fair use, that there are other photos out there, and thus this individual photo cannot meet NFCC as a unique photo that we must use. Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of the comments here point out that this is a historically important image. While I don't disagree that it's important, that doesn't mean it satisfies NFCC. However, I don't agree that it's historically significant in such a way that this specific non-free photo must be the true one and only photo we use. As other editors have noted, there are many different photos of the incident (taken at different angles, photographers, etc). The incident is extremely recent, and considering how many attendees there were, it's not implausible to think that a free equivalent may exist. Just because it hasn't turned up ~4 hours(!) after it could have been taken does not mean it doesn't exist outright (NFCC 1). WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 01:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the image is iconic for sure, but it is not compliant with the fair use. Read the banner: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts" --RicoRico (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This image has significant commercial value and is not strictly necessary to understand anything discussed in the article, thus it fails to meet fair use rationale. Whether or not it is "historic" is irrelevant. Nosferattus (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just added some text about it. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where? I'm not seeing it. (If it's the one-liner in Evan Vucci's article, that wouldn't be sufficient, even if we were talking about putting the image there instead.) —Cryptic 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responses: other. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 01:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is worth noting that no free images have at this point been released. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only support temporary use of the photo until a copyright-free version of it are released or uploaded, then change the image. Mhatopzz (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until some other photo emerges that is (1) closer in time to the moment of shooting, (2) generally representative of the situation, and (3) high enough resolution to be of value to the viewer. Please let me know if someone knows of a better photo based on these criteria.
If it's not covered under fair use, can't the photographer give permission? 204.237.0.170 (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyright image that is infringing on photographer's possible opportunities and simple illustrating the article, not being used in an acceptable context. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep This is the photo of the event. It's already spread like wildfire and describes a lot of what happened. Pickle Mon (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unclear on the source of the image and it's currentely being used for political uses on twitter, i feel it should be an image right before shots were fired to keep it consistent with other presidential assasination articles and it provides a clearer view NoKNoC (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To not use this image does not make sense as it has high relevance to the actual shooting. It should be kept as is. 2603:3020:1D28:0:A102:898D:4162:35B0 (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep possible. This is objectively the most notable picture of this event. When people see this, this is the image people think of. If this image gets deleted, it would be a horrible disservice to Wikipedia. Skirjamak (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per wasianpower and especially NATG 19 , doesn't add to the article and not historic at all. Maybe a reeval soon?
Sharrdx (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per reasons listed above. Just because a photo is notable does not mean we can undermine Wikipedia's adherence to copyright law. It also does nothing to help the reader understand the article better.
The diagram in this article showing where the shooter was located is a perfect example of a useful image, albeit not copyrighted. Ayyydoc (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above arguments
Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This image is likely to become one of cultural and/or historical significance. 2603:6081:893A:610B:D4CE:7D69:3DEE:CDAD (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This image is clearly of great historical significance. It should not be removed or replaced. 2601:602:8C81:C690:D091:DD6D:9C3F:4D8F (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Image will be generation defining 2600:1700:8528:F60:367D:E8A6:D501:A28F (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is the photo that summarizes the event. If you were to choose a photo to summarize the event, it would be this one. Photos are meant to aid the reader in understanding the article further, and this image very well does this. Coulomb1 (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This image has been spread everywhere among news articles and social media, and already is and will be to a further extent one of great cultural and historical significance and recognizability. The image itself is subject to commentary as it singlehandedly improved Trump's image and perceived character. KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its a cool image but its not fair use MildLoser (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others
LittleMAHER1 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyrighted image, the image is not the subject matter itself, enough said. If we can find a non-copyrighted image, then use that, if not, no image is necessary.Real tlhingan (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2600:1700:103C:3410:C815:6813:7DA:9704 (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic and remarkable image of defiance in the face of lethal political violence. Userino (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Supposing that some visual becomes emblematic of this event in the public consciousness, there should absolutely be a corresponding photo present in the article. Of that much I am certain.
It seems that the moment this photo captured has become emblematic of the event itself, being featured in numerous articles and publications. Only time can give us absolute certainty, but this is a fair bet to make. As such, if this moment becomes ingrained in our collective psyches as representative of the event, then a free, equivalent photo should absolutely be included in the article if one exists.
Should this copyrighted photo itself become the defining photo, then that absolutely justifies its usage. However, only after some time passes will we know with certainty. I withold final judgement until then, and I believe that that should hold true for the rest of us.
Until and unless some amount of time has passed and we can clearly see that no, this moment did not in fact come to be emblematic of the event, I think we must absolutely keep either it, or an equivalent, in the article. I think that this is a fair and balanced take on the matter. Hanoi89computerlover (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold DecafPotato (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a historical photo that features Trump's iconic fist symbol after the attack. Similar to the photo of Reagan right before his assassination attempt GodzillamanRor (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least as currently used. In the infobox, it is not being used to explain discussion of the photo; it is being used for its content rather than for its historicity. There is at least an arguable case of having a small version of it near the discussion of the photo itself, but the infobox is totally outside the flow of the article. All the argument that it illustrates the event well is but-I-like-it argumentation, which does not address the copyright concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is going down in American history, it'll be talked about forever in political science classes and the photographer will probably receive a pulitzer for it..keep! 68.10.108.140 (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Photo looks hard af 49.188.176.117 (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait until a satisfactory substitute is found. Doubtful we'd be able to find one though. Ronan.Iroha (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I simply have to disagree. The photo shows a scene of the incident, which makes it absolutely justified in my point of view. 2A02:FF0:331C:C3DD:440:A65D:8F78:4267 (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is part of topic I think your pronouns take up to much of your brain use to realize that’s what ever article does provide pictures on subject of article . Leftist loser 2603:8080:8DF0:6710:5902:62AE:C0D9:36DD (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is so iconic, its explanatory power is equal to 10 paragraphs. It is very important for the article. Mstf221 (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the image itself is extensively discussed on the article. This is more subjective, but the article feels incomplete without the picture. Collorizador (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per others JSwift49 10:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:gee i wonder what completely unbiased reason you might have to block this image mr they/them 86.29.78.221 (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:You have pronouns listed. Of course you hate President Trump. 50.126.66.207 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the iconic image adds depth to the article. Very purposeful. TheMovieGuy (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete, WP:F7. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete this is not covered under fair use Victor Grigas (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reluctantly. While it's probably the best image for this article, it has pretty clear commercial value. Also relevant is that the article isn't about the image itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think WP:F7b applies here; [9] is sourced commentary on the photo itself in the article ("An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards"). It's not being used to say much, but that seems to keep it out of speedy territory. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yo, got some new commentary in the article on it. Check it out in aftermath, it'll develop BarntToust (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth noting that the very first example they give (Rich McCormick tweet) is not this image but a similar one. That illustrates that it's the event that's significant, not this photo. Adabow (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This clearly falls under fair use as a historical image. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is an article on this particular photograph, somehow. Bedivere (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only is it a historical image, the article now includes commentary about the photo itself. Skyshiftertalk 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also good commentary. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the is there COMENTARY? argument is being satisfied, so that can no longer be realistically used as a definitive reason against, also, do wait for more commentary, surely more will come. BarntToust (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. This meets multiple requirements now: Historic image, no free equivalent, commentary on it Personisinsterest (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cle notes that a different photo is being used by his allies. Thus, it may be the one that becomes iconic instead. It's simply too early to tell. -- i Zanimum (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it shows a different photo but this is the one that is being spread Personisinsterest (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is leaving out this image detrimental to the understanding of the article, @Skyshifter. Answering that question is critical to this picture being used. Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Are there any freely licensed photographs of this shooting? The photo of Trump with his fist up is somewhat iconic at the moment, and we could use non-free images if no free ones exist (we can't exactly make free ones exist if they don't, since this event already occurred). But I do wonder: is it truly necessary to use a photo like that here? Is it irreplaceable? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Trump's supporters may not even know what a Creative Commons license is. It takes a special kind of not-normal, "nerd" (not used derogatorily, only factually) type of person to understand those things, and the general populous, like most of the attendees, probably doesn't understand those concepts. And only the few in the front rows could be able to take good pics. Don't count on it. BarntToust (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "Trump Supporters" instead of "the general public" can be construed as an attack on that group, especially when referring to things they allegedly do not know. Reads like "Those stupid DRUMPFKINS don't know bout the Creative Commons, those rural morons!". Perhaps you could consider better phrasing for your comment, such as "general public", "non-registered users", "non-Wikipedians" etc. WP:Etiquette point 4. 86.180.196.148 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user goes on to say "the general populous, like most of the attendees, probably doesn't understand those concepts", and the phrasing used was "Trump's supporters", which is a subtle difference but is a factual descriptor of who was at the event. RadioAlloy (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very specious reasoning to declare that "Trump supporter" is a factual descriptor of all attendees. Can you provide a source that everyone in attendance was a Trump supporter, including all members of the media? Seems a big stretch to suggest that no Independents, Democrats or Undecideds were there. (EDIT: missing word) 86.180.196.148 (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BarntToust: I don't believe the argument of 'no free image could exist because all the photographers probably don't know about Commons' would satisfy NFCC. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 03:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      in fact it's just a bad fallacy. Bedivere (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I do wonder if the Secret Service has some footage of the event. That would be in the public domain. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm referring to people, not the photographers there in this case.. We needn't rely on potential for someone to decide, "well, I somehow managed to snap a pic in juuuuust the right moment here, let me release it from my ownership forever". It's a big thing, letting people at unrestricted use of a photo.
      Yeah, I should've referred to the minority of people who are there not for the obvious reason to rally at a rally along with everyone for a catch-all term. It does sound bad when taken out of context. I do have to admit, I really don't trust that most people in a given situation, regardless of political affiliation or any other unrelated aspect of their persons, would be familiar with the process, or even understand commons as a system. It's not an insult to them, it's just not expecting them to be familiar with things that most are not. Or simply be aware of such a system. If that were so and everyone was familiar with Commons, we'd have a new infobox picture of Ryan Reynolds every time he and Blake Lively go out to eat. That is, if someone could get a good pic of him. It's an extended metaphor. It does seem bad when taken the wrong way, but I'd like to assure you that it's really not what I intend. I don't want to expect anything that has many possible roadblocks. BarntToust (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NFCCP#1. It is impossible to know if there is a non-free equivalent right now. Somebody else could have been close enough to take a picture of Trump, and it is possible that a person may release one under a compatible license in the near future. Also fails #2 because the photographer is certainly seeking to sell this picture. If reliable sources begin to write about this particular image, then it might be appropriate to use the image in the context of that description; per #8 it certainly shouldn't be in the infobox, divorced from that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - clearly violates image policy. Its way too soon to conclude that there isn't a free alternative. Surely, given this hasn't even been published in newspapers yet, it may be impacting the market value of the image. If used, surely it should be much lower resolution. I don't see how it helps the understanding of the event; there's no context to the blood. How is leaving out this image detrimental to the understanding of the article? Nfitz (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look at commentary of the image. More surely to come. BarntToust (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that is in the infobox so not really rellivant.©Geni (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Put the commentary in the infobox. WP:BEBOLD BarntToust (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case the image needs to be moved out of the infobox and to the relevant section of the article. There's no rationale for it being in the infobox. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Temple, Emily (February 21, 2018). "20 Iconic New Yorker Covers from the Last 93 Years". Literary Hub. Archived from the original on February 23, 2018. Retrieved February 23, 2018.
  2. ^ Norris, Mary (May 10, 2015). "How I proofread my way to Philip Roth's heart". The Guardian. Archived from the original on July 12, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2018. It has been more than 20 years since I became a page OK'er—a position that exists only at the New Yorker, where you query-proofread pieces and manage them, with the editor, the author, a fact-checker, and a second proofreader, until they go to press.
  3. ^ "Mary Norris: The nit-picking glory of the New Yorker's comma queen". TED. April 15, 2016. Archived from the original on July 28, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2018. Copy editing for The New Yorker is like playing shortstop for a major league baseball team—every little movement gets picked over by the critics ... E. B. White once wrote of commas in The New Yorker: 'They fall with the precision of knives outlining a body.'
  • You are confused. BarntToust (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a reliable website. You are wrong on saying it's unreliable. BarntToust (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BarntToust, I'm pretty sure Zaathras is replying to a user sharing an op-ed from NewsBreak, which is listed as an unreliable source at WP:RS/P. They weren't replying to you about the New Yorker. Also, just a friendly suggestion, be mindful of when you may be leaving an excessive number of messages like this, as this could be perceived as WP:BLUDGEONING.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh okay, I didn't realize. Apologies for any ill feelings, @Zaathras, but I simply wished to be proactive in this, and my points do stand. Also, I take the linked essay from @Vanilla Wizard as an essay, not my binding duty, and I plan on (albeit respectfully) continuing my dialogue for however long this continues. I saw that Zaathra posted their words directly under my New Yorker source, and I apologize for going at it under a perhaps unfortunate and misunderstood context. I'll be more pragmatic in my edits from here on out. Thanks, Vanilla, for speaking with me. Have a good one all! BarntToust (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even the same image - most obviously, in the image in the The New Yorker piece, Trump's mouth is closed and the female agent's head is higher. (It's not even quite the same image as in the Politico article - we should be using an uncropped, though still reduced, version, if at all.) —Cryptic 03:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Vucci's work is the best here, and the subject of legitimate critical commentary. So, a Vucci image could probably illustrate it best, in the illustration of such commentary and notability. BarntToust (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is most certainly going to be the image that defines this particular event, for sure 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire 26 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - there would only be a valid fair use rationale if there were an article on the image itself. But using a copyrighted image in the manner it was originally intended, that is to illustrate material about what the image is of and not to discuss the image itseld, when that copyrighted image is at the height of its commercial utility is a violation of our fair use criteria and the photographer's and/or agencies right to market and profit from that image. This is a blatant fail of NFCC #2. It may well be valid under US law for fair use, but our NFCC is considerably more strict than that.nableezy - 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close — Commentary has been provided about this image. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an historic image that cannot be recreated since the event has passed. It provides significant aid to the reader by illustrating the nature of Trump's injuries and his reaction to them. R. G. Checkers talk 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah! most efficient image to use to cover many aspects of the situation. BarntToust (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: from the template itself ({{Non-free historic image}}): Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). The actual use of this non-free image is in the article about the event itself, not in an article about the image itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the commentary? It's in the article. BarntToust (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust read the template content. The use should be on an article or a section about the image itself, not the event. It is what is written in the template. Again: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the usage of non-free rationale should apply for this one, if the template is not valid in the context of an image in an article. BarntToust (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the boilerplate notice on the template: Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). As used in the article about the event itself, this is certainly a breach of this restricted use condition. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The market role can be mitigated by reduction of its size to the point in the uncanny valley where it's illustrative but not usable outside of the context. BarntToust (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust the image is right again in the infobox, which clearly shows the purpose of illustrating the event: a breach of the conditions imposed by the template stating that it should only be used when it is the subject of a commentary, not a subject of the event. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like him or not, this image is going to be iconic - numerous sources are already calling this a historic image and that is not going to change. It should be removed from the infobox, and then replaced with a free image when one becomes available, but § Effects on Trump's public image describes the image and its impact and can justifiably be used there. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no logical or encyclopedic reason to remove the image. This image is the one most commonly used by the media and by those in social media as the means by which the event is most recognizable and understood. It is not that much different from the one most commonly associated with the attempt on Ronald Reagan's life, and is currently used on Wikipedia for the article covering said attempt. Given its wide circulation throughout the media, there is little basis to state that this image shouldn't be used because of copyright. As has been said before, this is a historic image and that alone should merit its keeping on the article. Vivaporius (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong keep - as we have other copyrighted historic images that aren’t in articles discussing the image. This will very likely become an iconic image. So I think it’ll qualify as fair use. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already been circulating in some of the largest media outlets out there like CNN who say as much too. From CNN: 'The images will stand in history and enrich Trump’s mythology just as surely as the picture of his mug shot in at Atlanta jail and the footage of his return to the White House in 2020 after beating a serious Covid-19 infection.' —"Attack on Trump reopens a chilling chapter in American politics"
Strong keep per LuxembourgLover, Coulomb1, Personisinsterest, and others. - AndreyKva (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think any organization really owns the copyright of the image, its historic, and is commonly used on the internet. Dose any organization own the copyright to the image? if so which one.Zyxrq (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zyxrq: Evan Vucci owns the copyright of the image. Common use alone does not satisfy NFCC. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs)

Keep it. It is historical and iconic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.136.24 (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. with respect and kudos to the photographer, the photo appears to show Trump in what could easily be seen as an ostentatiously strong light, and used alone, it encompasses the events of the day very narrowly. Additionally, whether or not we have license under Wikipedia rules to use the photo in the way we are currently displaying it on the page doesn't quite seem concrete.

--User: MattiasLikesOxygen-- — Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The media is calling this specific image "one of the most iconic photos in U.S. history". It therefore cannot be replaced (NFCC#1) and is a significant aspect of this event which we would miss if we didn't include (NFCC#8). I note also that the article already contains discussion of the image, which would be significantly diminished without the image's presence. Endwise (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a pretty strong supporter of property rights and I am not persuaded by those on the other side of this discussion that this image meets the legal criteria for an exception to copyright protection. There are quite a few very dramatic images of yesterday's events. I am fairly sure we can find one or two that will pass legal muster and do justice to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFCC. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very obviously a history-defining photo that falls under WP:FAIRUSE, per above; case closed (Comment/Abstain proviso: I support an explicitly free-use alternative if available, but I doubt we'll see one for some time ipso facto).--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 07:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image improves the article and is of obvious historic importance. Glass Snow (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Image is of particular note. Besides that, we don't really have a free use image to replace it, other than those of poor quality. Keep this for now and see what happens with the licensing of the image, we have a commentary on the image located within the article anyway. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, at least until another good image can be found. I've participated in a decent number of FFDs and here's my opinion. This image is definitely historic given its importance and the degree of coverage it's getting. (It wouldn't surprise me if it gets its own article after the dust settles.) I'm quite sure it's an acceptable historic image, because it's the subject of significant commentary. The only thing I'm worried about is whether this meets NFCC 2, respect for commercial usage. After all, we're using it to report the news--it's mostly not the subject of commentary. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on copyright grounds as articulated by many others. If the photographer releases the image under a Creative Commons license, then it can be kept and moved to Commons. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This line of inquiry is a dead-end, AP will never freely license this. However, the image is historic enough that it's fair-use, to the point that there is significant discussion about this particular image. There is a significant loss if this image is deleted. I'm voting Keep. Bremps... 08:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per u:HandIsNotNookls and u:JPxG (Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history"). No chance of finding a free equivalent (NFCC #1). Low-res version would not harm the author's commercial opportunities (NFCC #2). The current use is minimal (NFCC #3). Alaexis¿question? 08:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is one problem I notice within the opposition here. Some falsely assume that this image is propaganda and hence violates NPOV. This is easily debunked that Associated Press, the last news website to ever upload Trump 'propaganda', was the uploader of the image. Hence it is not propaganda, which as a pejorative can't be used in encyclopedic discussions, but a remarkable image overused amid a fierce political season. I would argue that 'propaganda' isn't per se unencyclopedic— if we have a stunning portrait of Adolf Hitler, that's not propaganda, that's just a perfect photo to depict him. I notice that the image has an entire critical analysis section at the bottom of Aftermath, which seems to legitimize the presence of this picture. I would suggest moving the image to that part of the art. instead, so that its significance is more obvious. GeraldWL 08:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediate Delete The image is a blatant violation of copyright, and its continues use opens up the Wikimedia Foundation to legal liabilities. It does not meet the criteria for fair use. Anyone arguing that it is an iconic image should create a new article specifically about this image. Hallucegenia (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the claim for fair use fails condition WP:F7 "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and may be deleted immediately. Hallucegenia (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the subject of sourced commentary - ? jp×g🗯️ 10:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the copyright problem here, fair use is dominant in this case. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given the significant coverage of the photograph, it's entirely possible that this image should get its own page, and certainly a mention on the photographer's page. Some users seem to be confusing the question of whether we should keep this image on the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page, and whether we should delete the image altogether. Just like many copyrighted images, there's a clear fair use case for this. Whether or not we should use the image on the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page is a different question entirely (I would personally still lean towards, 'yes, it should be used on that page') but that's its own discussion. Joe (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – until we can find a better-quality free replacement, this will do for now. It seems like a valid case of fair use to me. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without future replacement by a free image. Historical photo, importance being noted by many reliable sources, applies for fair use, and is the most representative picture of the event. So what's the problem? Super Ψ Dro 09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this "most representative" of the event? The event was a shooting. This is a moment in the aftermath. -- Zanimum (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles are trickling into the mainstream press with titles like Trump’s Raised Fist Will Make History — And Define His Candidacy (Politico) and "Amid the Mayhem, Trump Pumped His Fist and Revealed His Instincts" (The New York Times). Trump's reaction to the attack is notable in and of itself, and this image is an ideal means of illustrating that aspect of the event. Particularly if this ends up being a turning point in the campaign—which is certainly credible considering how other assassination attempts of political candidates has gone in the past—having this image will be a critical piece of Wikipedia's coverage of the event.
Now, for the policy wonks—There is clearly no way to get a free use image of this not-legally-recreatable event (NFCC #1), the photographer's commercial opportunities are clearly not being hampered by us running it since so many mainstream outlets are running the full-size image (NFCC #2), it is used once to illustrate one article (NFCC #3, #7), as stated before it has been previously published in major news sources (NFCC #4), it is encyclopedic (NFCC #5, although I contend that this site has ground the word "encyclopedic" down into such a fine paste that it has no meaning anymore, but that's what the policy asks for here), I can see no reason it would violate WP:IUP (NFCC #6), as the de facto defining image of the event it inherently increases readers' understanding of the article topic and would be detrimental to the readers' understanding (NFCC #8), NFCC #9 is not relevant to a deletion discussion, and the image description page looks up to snuff (NFCC #10). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current layout with the image used in a section specifically discussing impact and coverage of the image should be fine. Whether in can be used for the article overall should be up to people better versed in copyright law. — jonas (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an image with very clear historical importance.--Martianmister (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, until a free image is available - Jonnmann (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Since no one on the Keep side has offered more persuasive reasons than "common use" or "historical event", I find myself, as a law student, obliged to give some, though I confess that my reasons may rather be more like "legal policy" instead of "original text". I also invite @BluePenguin18 to join the discussion here so that we can better address this case.
BluePenguin18 has mentioned that the photo here falls undoubtedly under the protection of US copyright law, which I won't oppose. Here I'll rather refer to a German case that the Wiki community has lost in a row of appeals (BGH, 20.12.2018 - I ZR 104/17, Museumsfotos): while the artworks in the museum were all in public domain, the German court found the photos on Wiki infringing, relying on the photographer’s neighboring right (no copyright for “Lichtbilder” there), as well as the museum’s land right along with standard form contract ("Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen"). Two inspirations: first, even without copyright, monopoly on info may still occur through other means; second, throughout and even after the whole legal process Wikimedia has been a staunch endorser of free use. [1]. For us Wikipedians, fair use should never be a compliance requirement which hinders our free expression. Rather we have a long history of “rebel”.
You may argue that here we’re talking about a newly created picture, not something in the public domain, and the two cases must be distinguished. Fine. But from the outset of the modern interpretation of fair use doctrine (since Campbell) there has not been a consensus that it is only a defense for customers who accidentally and “harmlessly” takes a free riding. Rather, many scholars have seen fair use as per se shaping the limits of copyright and hence encouraging positive secondary uses, even if the use is at odds with the original author’s potential commercial plan. (See for example, “Fair Use: An Affirmative Defense?” by Lydia Pallas Loren, 2015.)
Among the four factors of fair use, Factor 4, i.e. market incentives, has often been seen as significantly, if not decisively, important. Yet few, if not none, has talked about it here. We need to recognize that Evan Vucci, as an employee of AP and already prize-winning photographer, enjoys much more economic benefits from elsewhere than from a petty license on Wiki. And due to the news nature of the photo he may expect more financial interests from the next Pulitzer Prize rather than from broad online licensing. More importantly, after the news he HAS POSTED THE PHOTO ON THE X PLATFORM so that anyone from Elon Musk to a nobody can freely cite it. Did he just post a low-quality copy of the photo there so that he can price discriminate on different sites? Nope. And he must be aware that the photos online does not harm his capacity to license other famous magazines and papers.
Conclusion, even if Vucci does really want more profits from Wiki, that doesn’t mean we should give in first. Just wait for him to DMCA us! -- Jason211pacem (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deir Suryan mural.jpeg

File:Deir Suryan mural.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CltFn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source of image is http://www.christoph-heger.de/Note_on_the_Huris.htm which states "Foto/courtesy Andrea Barbara Schmidt". Clearly not own work of uploader, but am listing it here due to the age of the upload. Johnj1995 (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VivziePop YouTube profile picture.jpg

File:VivziePop YouTube profile picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LunaEclipse (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free icon used to illustrate the infobox of a living person, for which freely licensed images could be created. Fails the NFCC. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May count as a significant part of the YouTuber's branding. Bremps... 07:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:F7. Profile picture is non-free content from a commercial source (her monetized YouTube channel) and is not the subject of sourced commentary. — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 08:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://diff.wikimedia.org/2015/11/23/lawsuit-public-domain-art/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_July_14&oldid=1234439244"